Big Oil, Big-Gas lobby against coal. Shell leans on World Bank to nobble the competition

Well, well, well. When Big-Oil fund skeptics, they’re evil polluters. When Big-Oil pay green lobbyists, they’re just being good citizens (see the ads, right?). Naturally Royal Dutch Shell are concerned about the environment, families, rare marsupials and what not. They wouldn’t just be green for the profit would they… oh, wait. Shell is one of the six gas “super majors” and all gas providers profit when coal is unfashionable. In terms of resources, Shell is now more of a gas company than an oil company.

Big-Gas loves wind turbines. Wind farms are fickle and coal power can’t ramp up and down quickly to fill in the gaps, but the more expensive gas can. No wonder Shell are lobbying actively against coal, and for wind.

Thanks in part to Shell’s campaign, the poor family in the Shell Ad are going to have to pay more to stay warm this winter. Meanwhile the marsupials will manage without Shell lobbyists like they have for the last 100 million years, and the environment won’t notice any effect from a carbon tax.

As with all cut-throat business deals, Shell (and others) are doing what they are supposed to do: make money. There is nothing illegal about lobbying. The real problem is the cherry picking, one-eyed, half truth campaign that “vested” interests are running a denial industry–as if there were not 5000 times as many vested interests benefiting from Climate Fear, and as if there were not a truckload of reasons for volunteers to rail against stupid spending, junk modeling, bad assumptions, and naked profiteering.

The worst of all are the dupe journalists who swallow and pump the mindless meme uncritically.

Shell really wants people to avoid coal

[The Australian] ROYAL Dutch Shell actively lobbied the World Bank to stop funding coal-fired plants before an announcement this year that the lender would dramatically reduce its support of coal, Australia’s second biggest export.

Shell’s head of gas, Maarten Wetselaar, said the energy giant had formed an advocacy department whose sole purpose was to convince governments and government-funded bodies to encourage gas as a power source over more polluting forms of energy, such as coal.

He said the company also was very active in reducing subsidies for coal in South Korea, the second biggest buyer of Australian coal.

Shell even worked on the World Bank — leaning on them to cut back their funding for new coal stations. Shell is making life harder for people in the third world who desperately need cheap coal powered electricity.

[The Australian] “We found out most coal plants get their funding started by using the bilateral funding agencies, such as the World Bank, so we were talking to them about the impact their policies have on the energy mix of the world,” Mr Wetselaar said.

In June, the World Bank and the US Export Import Bank said they would dramatically reduce their contributions to coal-fired power stations because of their high carbon emissions.

Big-Oil is in bed with Big-Green. No wonder the world is a mess.

“We don’t sell them (governments) gas, we sell them policy. The climate agenda is broader than just selling gas into the system, it’s about trying to give gas its rightful place in the global energy mix,” he said of the company’s advocacy group.

Big-Gas really wants more windmills

Windmills provide unreliable energy, and coal powered stations don’t switch and down quickly enough to take up the slack when the wind slows. Gas powered plants are more expensive but much better suited to changeable production. Each new solar or windmill farm is really a gas burner in disguise, because gas-fired electricity generating capacity has to be built to accompany each unreliable renewable — like a show-pony and a work horse.

Gas turbines … can be turned on and off almost instantly, whereas traditional coal-fired plants need to be maintained in a very inefficient standby mode if they are to respond to large fluctuations in power demand.

A proliferation of windmills, then, can become a windfall for gas sellers. Just look at the cases of Spain and Germany, Europe’s leading producers of wind power.

By the end of 2007 Spain had 14,700 megawatts (MW) of installed wind capacity, according to Enagás, which manages the national gas network, producing 8.7% of the country’s total power supplies. Most of these wind generators are located in scarcely populated areas, while the power consumption is concentrated in big cities with their many air-conditioned buildings. The peak load of the Spanish power grid is thus in the hot summer months —but this is precisely the time of year when there usually isn’t much wind.

For this reason, more and more gas turbines are being installed near consumers in the suburbs of Spain’s cities. Only last year, Spanish power providers added 6,400 MW of gas-turbine power capacity, taking the total installed capacity of gas turbines to 21,000 MW. Natural gas has become the main source of electricity generation in Spain, and according to Enagás, 99.8% of the gas used in Spain is imported. Most of this comes via pipeline from Algeria, but the import of liquid natural gas (LNG) by ships will increase.

Most European countries force consumers to subsidize electricity from wind power. This makes “renewables” a very safe investment compared with other energy businesses, where swings in commodity prices can be large. As Europe’s big integrated oil and gas companies—such as Shell, BP and Total—invest more and more in LNG, they lobby hard for a world-wide carbon-emissions trading system that would further increase the advantage of gas over coal.

Just because there is an agenda, and an obvious profit at stake, doesn’t mean what tell us about the climate is wrong. After all, Shell would still behave this way if global warming really was due to CO2. What it does tell us, however, is that we need a science debate that’s free of junk claims about vested interests. What we also need is a policy debate that looks at all the vested interests equally, instead of pretending (against all the facts) that the small side is an ogre, while the billioned-up crew are doing it to save the planet.

The meme “Big Oil Funds Skeptics” is not just irrelevant and illogical, it’s wrong too.

Not just wrong, but diabolically misleading. For instance, WWF ‘s first corporate sponsorship was £10,000 gift from Shell in 1961, and soon after hired lawyers and began lobbying. Does Shell still fund WWF? WWF campaigns against the competitors of gas: coal, fracking, oil, ports in Queensland for coal exports, and so on. Just saying.

PS: Some edits and a source added for the last para.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]

please wait...

Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)

Big Oil, Big-Gas lobby against coal. Shell leans on World Bank to nobble the competition, 10.0 out of 10 based on 1 rating

Oh dear, oh dear. Yes dear chap, we still make beer luckily. We also make bread, though on the outside chance it’s lost on you, we don’t grind the wheat into flour using windmills, which our forebears knew were unreliable.

Indeed, as soon as our forebears were able, or were well placed next to a reliable water supply, they used water wheels, oxon, in fact almost anything EXCEPT wind.

Still stuck with your head not working right I see. You could try opening your eyes and watching what’s actually happening in the world. There’s nothing so cathartic as a good dose of reality. But I’m sure you prefer your own imagination (or is it the imagination of others?) over taking the responsibility to think for yourself.

In any case, welcome back. I’m sure you’ll provide hours of good reading as you’ve always done in the past.

“Wind power is a rapidly expanding mode of renewable energy production in Australia with an average annual rate of growth in installed capacity of 35% over the five years up to 2011. As of 2011, there is 2224 megawatts (MW) of installed capacity, with another 15284 MW either being planned or under construction.[1] In the year to October 2011, wind power generated 6432 gigawatt hours (GWh) of electricity accounting for 2.4% of Australia’s total electricity demand”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Australia

No. Obviously you don’t mean what’s actually happening. You mean, what I desperately pretend is happening while I avoid the reality.

New technologies. Seriously, were you laughing hysterically when you typed that hoping we are all too stupid to realize wind turbines for electricity are an 18th and early 19th century product which was replaced by real energy like coal, oil, hydro and gas? Wind is hunter/gatherer–or trapper–energy. We put up these wind traps up and pretend the energy is “renewable”. Yeah, like hunting for one’s dinner and trapping for one’s dinner and taking out a bucket and picking berries. If “renewable” means “having it whenever it shows up”, then yes, it’s renewable energy. Then something new and better came along for providing food–farming. We didn’t have to hope something wondered by now–just like coal meant we didn’t need to wait for wind to get lights. Yep, windmills were a wonderful way to get electricity–so wonderful that farmer after farmer tied into REC’s in America in the early 1900′s. Only now, with romantic nostalgia, do we pretend that wind turbines are a great source of energy.

So, Margot, where’s the new in the hunter-gatherer, catch it if the wind blows mess that are wind turbines?

Sheri believes that when addressing a troll, she will need to write in smaller words and sentences. It’s way too easy for trolls to skip over the entire passage and point out one item. I would guess if you were anything but a troll, your brain would have told you that the sentence was poorly constructed. My bad. I will carefully type so as not to confuse your tiny little mind. To clarify:

First electrical wind turbine: 1887
Prior to that, windmills were used for mechanical tasks such as grinding grain and pumping water.

Using turbines for electricity is going back over 100 years and calling it “new” and “progress”.

Oh Margot, you’re one of the big reasons why your side of this debate fails so miserably when you come and contribute at Blogs where people actually know what they’re talking about, thinking you’re striking a blow for your perceived good guys. Just like all of those on your side, you have no idea what you’re talking about, mindlessly believing what others tell you, thinking that they must be correct, because you have this almost desperate longing to believe that voice of authority which pulls your strings.

You have positively no idea whatsoever what you think you might be saying.

You then link into those 2 Wikipedia sites, and bravo Margot, they’re only 2 years hopelessly out of date.

Also, for our edification, where you quote this little gem:

…..with another 15284 MW either being planned or under construction.

might you please point us at some of those proposals.

That’s 16,000MW, just under six times the existing wind power currently operational in Australia. There’s nowhere near that total even in thought bubbles, let alone in planning, let alone already in construction. Did you even pause to think about that for even a blinking second Margot. That’s the equivalent of 32 new large scale wind plants, around an extra 8,000 towers.

Money where mouth is Margot. Show us!

Umm, to paraphrase your own statement here Margot, this is the truth about what you have said here, only not in reference to me, or us, but to you Margot.

No. Obviously you don’t mean what’s actually happening. You mean, what I desperately pretend is happening while I avoid the reality.

You know Margot, sometimes I’m not quite sure. I just can’t believe someone can get it so wrong so often, and I’m almost tempted to believe you’re just doing it as a leg pull, because surely, after being shredded so often, some people would get the hint.

Tony, you really need to get with the times. Your opinions simply reflect your ideological position which is at odds with reality. Wind power is establishing itself all over the world as a cheap and clean replacement for the old-fashioned technologies that preceded them.

South Australia is leading the way in Australia, with over about 25% of their electricity generated from wind turbines now, and having thus reduced their CO2 emissions by 27% – up there with Germany, Denmark and other countries that are reducing their reliance on fossil fuels.

There are dozens of projects lining up all around Australia as rising energy prices encourage the other states to join South Australia in its successful investment in clean, renewable energy generation.

Yes, the current Abbott government is going to try to stymie this as much as possible in order to assist the energy corporations in their continued monopolistic fleecing of the consumer, but he can’t stop it, and he won’t. Every decade from here on, Australia’s installed capacity of wind power will continue to grow dramatically, just as it is elsewhere in the world.

You just can’t help yourself can you Margot. You’re just a plain flat out liar. You claim this:

There are dozens of projects lining up all around Australia…..

Off you go then, list them.

Show me you’re not just flat out lying.

Your claimed 16,000MW of NEW wind in planning and construction comes in at around 32 large scale wind projects, and going on the King Island project, that’s around $24 to $30 Billion PLUS, just in new Projects.

If that is true as you claim, it would make it the biggest ramping up of wind power on Earth.

It’s a lie Margot. It’s not happening. There are barely two or three NEW wind plants in proposal stage let alone construction.

You *did* research this yourself before making your contribution, right?

I’ve done my research Margot, 6 years worth of it now, and all that has done is to confirm that Wind Power is an enormous cost for what amounts to virtually no real electrical power, and that it will NEVER replace traditional methods of generating power. I’ll stand by that six years of work Margot.

You, on the other hand, have nothing.

Show me that you’ve even scratched the surface of what you call research, and please the Wiki references you cling to as truth do not count.

You can’t help yourself. In your blinkered belief structure, you’ll clutch at any straw that confirms your false belief.

You call this “clean” do you? Maybe it does not count because it is happening in some remote part of China …

Let’s not talk about the millions of birds and bats that are being killed every year by Wind Power. Far be it from me to mention that taking energy from the wind affects weather patterns, or is that climate change that you are going to deny …

“Wind provides 28.3 percent of electricity in Denmark and also makes a double digit contribution of 16 percent in Portugal and Spain. It contributes more than 40 percent of annual electricity in three German states and 20 percent of South Australia’s electricity” (from Global Wind Day 2013)

How does 20 percent of ONE part of Australia’s electrical generation equal 30% less fossil fuel? Is that new math? And I have to assume that in South Australia the turbines are not tied into the grid because that would require backup generation and then the math really goes south…..Again, new math?

Editor’s note: The following clinical review article, sent to us by Dr. Mauri Johansson, MD, MPH, is from the Swedish medical journal, Läkartidningen. Unfortunately for us, it is available only in Swedish. Fortunately for us, “Google” offers a reasonable translation service. Behold the result! If readers spot mistakes in translation, please contact me and I’ll correct them.

Notice that the lead author, Dr. Enbom, is not only an MD, PhD, but—this is crucial!—he’s a neuro-otologist. A neuro-otologist is a combination “neurologist + otolaryngologist.” In plain English, this means that Dr. Enbom’s research and clinical expertise focus on disorders of the inner ear (along with the nose & throat). Wind Turbine Syndrome (WTS) is chiefly a disease of the inner ear, it increasingly appears. The good news is, this physician/scientist (that’s what the PhD is about) has the exact clinical and research credentials to pass judgment on WTS. (This separates him from amateurs like Geoff Leventhall, a Brit with a physics PhD, and the Australian “wonder,” Simon Chapman, armed with a sociology PhD. Both men see fit to scoff at WTS, despite neither one having the slightest expertise or remotest credential to do so. To call this ludicrous is to grossly understate the matter.)

Infrasound from wind turbines affects the inner ear and is a potential health risk for people with migraine or other type of central sensitization. The authors maintain that the legal framework for the creation of new wind turbines should be revised, taking into account this fact.

Previous scientific studies on wind turbines and infrasound have been contradictory. They have therefore not been sufficiently credible when planning a framework for the establishment of wind turbines. In recent years, however, a new insight has emerged on the central sensitization, providing a better understanding of migraine, fibromyalgia and other chronic pain syndromes [1, 2] and some cases of tinnitus and dizziness. This understanding is also important for understanding how infrasound from wind turbines can affect health. Several studies have found that living near wind turbines often create severe sleep disturbance and depression. They have also found an increased incidence of dizziness, tinnitus, hyperacusis, headache, increased activation of the autonomic nervous system, etc. [3, 4].

In addition to the audible sound, which can provide noise damage and be generally disruptive, mentally, spinning wind turbines also produce a vibrant infrasound that affects the inner ear and the central nervous system without damaging the hearing.

Infrasound is sound with frequencies below 20 Hz, corresponding to wavelengths of 17 meters and above, that is not perceived with normal hearing. This sound, if it is not mitigated substantially, propagates over very long distances. It arises from several sources, such as pulsating flows from chimneys, large eddies (such as wind turbines and large jet engines) and large vibrating surfaces. In scientific studies, infrasound from wind turbines has been measured at levels so low that the sound is not perceived by humans. It has also been determined that infrasound from wind turbines does not give rise to noise damage in the traditional sense [5].

In general, what has not been taken into account in many of these studies, is that infrasound from wind turbines has a rhythmic pulsing sound, and the pulsating sound pressure affects the inner ear, although no sound is perceived by the individual. The pressure waves propagate into the inner ear fluid-filled cavities, and this “massage effect” affects the sensory cells in the inner ear hearing and organs of balance [6]. Many studies fail to take into account the fact that some people are more sensitive than others to the sensory impact. Some are significantly affected by the pulsating sound pressure while others are not affected by it in a significant way.

The rhythmic, pumping infrasound from wind turbines stimulates inner ear sensory functions [7, 8]. Such sensory stimulation can occur in people with sensory hypersensitivity, causing symptoms such as unsteadiness, dizziness, headache, concentration difficulties, visual disturbances, and more [9]. The problems arise even if the noise level is relatively low, since infrasound constantly affects and rhythmically changes the pressure in the inner ear via the sound paths. The pulsing sound pressure from wind turbines also indirectly activates the autonomic nervous system, causing increased secretion of adrenaline with consequent stress effects, risk of panic anxiety, high blood pressure and heart attacks for people with increased sensory sensitivity.

Migraine is caused by a genetic central sensory hypersensitivity causing risk for central nervous sensitization. Migraine prevalence is about 30 percent in the general population [10, 11]. In addition there are other causes of central sensitization, which means that more than 30 percent of residents in the vicinity of wind turbines could be, to greater or lesser extent, affected by wind-related “annoyance.” Risk groups include people with migraine disorder or a family history of migraines, people over 50 years of age, people with fibromyalgia and those with a tendency to anxiety and depression [12]. Children and adults with ADHD and autism are at risk and could have their symptoms worsened.

The issue is not noise damage in the traditional sense, but the effect of a constant pulsating sound pressure that constantly changes the pressure in the inner ear and excites sensory organs there. One can liken it to pulsating or flickering lights—many people are not bothered noticeably, while people with sensory hypersensitivity may experience discomfort. Flickering light can even trigger epilepsy. Likewise,constantly pulsating, non-audible infrasound from wind turbines triggers considerable problems in people with central sensory hypersensitivity. These problems can become chronic, debilitating and lead to anxiety and depression and increase the risk of heart attack.

The current regulatory framework for wind turbines has not taken into account the potential risk to people with central sensory hypersensitivity. Wind turbines are being erected too close to buildings [homes]. The current regulatory framework should be revised with an increased safety distance from buildings [homes] to prevent or reduce the risk of wind-related excess morbidity.

Royal Dutch Shell is a Dutch Oil / Gas Coy and is ranked No. 1 largest Oil / Gas Coy in the World. With it’s Head Office based in the Hague one would imagine that there is great pressure to bear from it’s EU Netherlands Greenie Govt. Imagine the pressure the UK’s BP (ranked 6th) and France’s TOTAL (ranked 10th) are under from their respective Governments.

It only ranks number 1 if you ignore the state-owned companies. They dwarf the others for size. The largest LNG producer, for example, is the Qatari government’s. Going off memory, I don’t recall the order of magnitude of the variance between the state-owned and private sector companies. Gazprom is another notable, of course, and the Chinese state-owned cos.

I frequently point this out in letters to the editor. Wind and solar are no threat to oil and gas–and a boon for gas. We had company in the US that build a gas plant with the money it saved from the Production Tax Credit on wind. People have to be constantly reminded of this. We live in a world dominated by Twitter where people remember 140 characters at a time. I repeat it often: IT’s all about money. Period.

This might be of interest from Wikipedia: World Bank President Jim Yong Kim said in 2012 that:

“A 4 degree warmer world can, and must be, avoided – we need to hold warming below 2 degrees …. Lack of action on climate change threatens to make the world our children inherit a completely different world than we are living in today. Climate change is one of the single biggest challenges facing development, and we need to assume the moral responsibility to take action on behalf of future generations, especially the poorest.”[31]

A World Bank report into Climate change in 2012 noted that (p. xiii): “Even with the current mitigation commitments and pledges fully implemented, there is roughly a 20 percent likelihood of exceeding 4°C by 2100.” This is despite the fact that the “global community has committed itself to holding warming below 2°C to prevent ‘dangerous’ climate change”". Furthermore: “A series of recent extreme events worldwide highlight the vulnerability of all countries. … No nation will be immune to the impacts of climate change.”

Report 2013: The World Bank doubled its aid for climate change adaptation from $2.3bn (£1.47bn) in 2011 to $4.6bn in 2012. The planet is now 0.8 ºC warmer than in pre-industrial times. 2ºC warming is reached in 20 to 30 years.

Well you may need to add some other major Oil/Gas Coy’s to your “ban list”. In the case of Oz “gas is our saviour” – we have abundant supplies and are able to export considerable amounts of this valuable commodity (LNG). We should also continue to exploit our vast coal reserves not only for “coking coal” but also for base load energy generation e.g. the Victorian brown coal resource which currently sources most of Victoria’s grid power. Again I re-iterate the “Greenies RE fast tracking” can only bring great grief to our prosperous country – do we want to end up like the dysfunctional EU?

I discovered years ago that Shell fuel outlets often sell at prices that after a 4 cent Coles discount is applied is not any better than the pump price offered by other suppliers, more often than not. So I aim to use independent service stations such as United.

Yes, have a look at http://cementafriend.wordpress.com/2011/10/14/methane-good-or-bad/
When burnt natural gas produces more “greenhouse” gases than coal, not that is important but the slightly lower CO2 is nothing to crow about.
Most of the oil companies were at one stage big in coal, particularly shell in Australia. Their management was appalling and they withdraw because they were not getting a decent return on investment. The big oil companies Shell, BP, Esso, Total etc with the exception of a few (such as BHP which has a spread of mining interests) dislike the competition from coal. They hate the idea of liquids from coal, and are not keen on oil sands, shale oil & gas, or even coal seam gas because these require mining knowledge and management. The oil companies prefer to play politics to give them more power to set prices.

The “get them to kill me last” strategy. As Niemöller pointed out, it doesn’t work. The end does come, and all of your potential allies are already gone, while you did nothing. Worse, Shell is actually helping with the prosecution.

No, I compare Shell to the people of 1930s Germany. The Greens are out to get Shell, and Shell’s strategy is to sacrifice their allies to postpone the Green’s attack on them. In the end, the Green’s will attack Shell, and they will stand alone because they sacrificed their allies.

Actually, it’s all just business. Every business is out to make money. Many of them will align with whomever makes them the most money, then drop the ally as soon as sales fall. You don’t actually need the Nazi example. Just look at the monopolies in the early 1900′s and on in the USA. Look at actors/actresses dropped by advertisers. There’s no conspiracy, no overwhelming plot. Some businesses are gentler, some more vicious. They are all out to make money. That’s all it is.

There’s nothing “vicious” about people preferring to buy one service rather than another and therefore nothing vicious about business in and of itself. What’s vicious is when business is able to harness aggressive force or threats, which it can only do through government which claims and exercises a legal monopoly of the use of aggressive force.

Actually, cycling gas-powered electrical generating stations on and off is very harmful: “Every time a power plant is turned on and off, the gas turbine, HRSG or boiler, steam lines, steam
turbines, and auxiliary components go through unavoidably large thermal and pressure stresses, which cause damage and incur additional future costs” (Lefton, Kumar, Hilleman, & Agan, 2012). Thus, the process of backing up wind with gas is inherently bad. To put it another way, an unpredictably intermittent source of power is bad and will remain so until the problem of energy storage is solved.

Several power generators, for example in Germany, have discovered this and are shutting down gas turbine plants because they are no longer financially viable. This is why Germany is building more coal fired plants and increasing it’s CO₂ output.
If the people of Australia want to help the poorest people in the developing world, they could do no better than to finance the construction of new coal-fired plants there.

After BP’s accident in the Gulf of Mexico, all the oil companies are competing to be seen to be green about the environment.

There is huge amount of gas available worldwide and supply is going to increase exponentially once the fracking revolution goes global. None of the oil companies own coal mines any more, so it is good business practice to try and portray the competition in the worst possible light – legally, of course.

So, the best way to increase gas demand is to demonise coal and build wind farms. All makes perfect sense. The bottom line is all the global warming BS is just helping Big Oil expand its markets.

So for the greenies, this is yet another instance of the Law of Unintended Consequences making them look stupid.

Yes, Speedy. Commercials tend to be transparently hypocritical. And pure fantasy and insulting to our intellect. Which makes you wonder who these people are marketing to. And to want to stay as far away from said people as possible.

Wind being variable as well as unpredictable needs a fast acting backup when the output drops. This is best supplied by hydro-electricity, but if there isn’t enough of that then the next best is Open Cycle Gas Turbines, followed by diesel generators. Despite that name OCGT can run on oil or oil products such as kerosene; they are basically a jet engine coupled to a generator, and jets don’t run on gas or coal. Neither do diesel generators.

S.A. has lots of OCGT in lieu of hydroelectricity. The UK is frantically installing heavily subsidised “diesel farms” to make up for deficiencies in the wind supply. What a “stroke of luck” for an oil company.

If government did not have a monopoly of power over the economy, Shell or any other company could not lobby the government for favors and privilege. They would have to compete in the open market based upon the price and performance of their products. The problem is not so much Shell but is the obscene economic power that we have allowed our governments to have over us. That power grantees conflict among special interest groups and the consequent disastrous market distortions.

A free and open market is tough on the competitors. They really do have to deliver and can’t use the gun of government to steal superiority. In the long run everyone is a winner even though some may lose in the short run However, in the long run, the government monopoly is tough on everyone including the groups who advocate their special interests.

If you mean sensible antitrust laws then we don’t even have that. At least certainly not when the government then passes laws exempting medical insurers from those same antitrust laws so they can fix prices as they please. The states stepped in to fill that gap and their regulation amounts to stifling competition, especially interstate completely anyway.

The flip side of that coin is that government is now giving unions carte blanche to run roughshod over anyone and everyone. Let’s not mention the Supreme Court that ruled that violence in pursuit of union objectives is constitutional.

If the government actually did its job we’d be much better off. But certainly it won’t happen with Democrats or Republicans in power.

We have a government……and a few antitrust laws. We seem to lack a legal system to enforce said laws. Without a way to enforce the laws, even really great anti-trust laws do no good. I suppose I see the will and method to enforce as the first step, followed by fixing or adding laws as need arises.

There is little to no accountability in advertising for social causes. Greenpeace illegally enters Russian territorial waters and interfers with Russian drilling activities and David Suzuki can claim that environmentalits face harassment and intimidation. Anti-GMO foods tell tall tales of cancer-causing results that are shown to be based on bogus studies, just as the anti-fat, anti-milk, anti-white sugar groups showed flawed studies to demonize their particular item, but there is no flow-back.

You cannot be found guilty of causing harm in the current world if you are sincere.

We are in the sad state we are because as a culture we now value sincerity more than truthfulness. As long as you intend well, you can exaggerate, cherry-pick, misrepresent and misdirect. There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction when we attacked Iraq? Well, the guy really THOUGHT there were, or might be. He gets a pass. Fossil fuels as a disaster for the entire biosphere? Maybe not, but the claimants are trying to create a better world for all of us. Big Oil is a criminal organization who funds evil, nasty, solipsistic greedy guts – even though Big Oil also financially supports green groups and (publicly) green objectives? Oh, sure but they’re just trying to make a point, “raise the issue/awareness”.

They mean well, so all these errors, falsehoods and defamation are all right.

The society that values results prospers and improves. The society that values feelings lives well on the structures results produced. The society that values intentions slides down to ruin while congratulating itself that God will reward them later.

Sincerity in the guise of activism to create a society of “Useful Idiots”.
The amount of people in Australia who instead of just donating or help out without fanfare is diminishing and replaced by people who are compelled to wear a color, a costume, celebrate this, embrace that, walk for this run for that etc… but these people are being conditioned to believe it’s OK to endorse or protest publically as long as it’s done in an approved manner in the eyes of a government or NGO.
These are the same people who will read Shell’s false sincerity and applaud it’s apparent efforts to save everything we hold dear

To fake something as important as sincerity, is to wage war against reality. It is a war that cannot be won.

Reality is relentlessly what it is. As a consequence, any attempt to fake it cannot withstand the constant and untiring opposition. As with any theatrical production, the faking must always come to an end. Only the genuinely real can survive.

I’m doubtful that he’s really a socialist. He simply finds their agenda convenient. He has his own personal agenda which is all about a different ideal. And if you watch what he does you’ll see that his actions match that agenda closely.

Obama is much more dangerous than a socialist.

I know I’ve said this before but: Barack Obama is on a mission to tear down his country to the point where neither it, nor anyone in it can ever oppress anyone again. This is his purpose in life and nearly everything he does is in furtherance of this goal. And along the way he doesn’t care for the Constitution or the law at all. If it’s in his way and he thinks he can get around it, he does so by fiat. And if he can live it up and party at the country’s expense while doing it, so much the better.

Now Obama is also an incompetent manager and leader, preferring to simply dictate and this has caused him numerous missteps. And fortunately he’s also constrained as to how fast he can move toward his objective because he needs the help of many people to do his dirty work and he needs to keep them on his side. But his incompetence may be his undoing. It’s too soon to tell but for the first time there is a glimmer of hope.

I think few people realise that, Roy.
And it isn’t even a “conspiracy”. He wrote his intentions and his motive in “Dreams from my father”.
The motive is to destroy the USA.
The modus operandi is to operate behind the facade of Socialism.
Dinesh D’Souza had this sussed out when he produced the movie “2016″.
Have you watched it?

I’ve seen the movie and read both of D’Sousa’s books about Obama as well.

And you’re right about your main point. Too few pay attention. I would not promulgate D’Sousa’s thesis unless it was borne out in reality. And it is.

I do think you could call the MSM being in his pocket a conspiracy of sorts, although certainly not a consciously conceived and formally executed agreement.

My position is the result of the same stubborn insistence on substantial evidence that causes me to reject the global warming scam.

We are in the hands of evil and almost no one will look to see what it’s really doing. And I doubt that he would agree that it’s evil. His path was chosen long before he came to national prominence and he will walk that path come hell or high water because he believes it to be right. The damage along the way does not count with him.

But evil is as evil does.

In the end the Obamas are angry black racists with their clenched fists upraised to the world. And a part of me genuinely regrets the wasted lives they represent. But I cannot indulge that regret because of the damage to my country.

I cannot help wondering who is using him while he is using them. His general managerial incompetence leads me to suspect someone else is the real mover of Obama.

Why I maintain that it is not a “conspiracy” is that it is not a secret.
Just as Adolf set out what he had in mind in a book, Obama made it perfectly clear that his Kenyan father hated the West for the slave trade in which the British Empire and the USA engaged, and that he, Barry Soetoro, was going to get even.
That everyone was blissfully ignorant of Adolf, and now Soetoro, is a result of of a failure of the MSM to do its job.
As to why it will not do its job, I suspect, is a matter of money, and puppet masters behind the scenes with plenty of money.
It would be easy for us to dismiss your dilemma as being unique to your country. Unfortunately it is not. Here in Australia we have had six years of the same tactics employed in the USA. The Red Queen was, and still is, dead set on the destruction of not only the ALP political party, (it isn’t Communist enough) but the entire country. Like LHO, she did not act alone.
In a fashion similar to Barry Soetoro, she did not keep this secret until pursuing a political career. In her days in that cesspit of socialism, Monash University, she was up to here neck in the Socialist Forum, which later became absorbed in the Fabian Society. Pure EVIL.

I understand that the Yorkshire GP, Dr Harold Shipman personified sincerity. Amazing as it may seem (though entirely understandable from the perspective of reassurance), patients are instinctively drawn toward a apparently compassionate and sincere practitioner, over one who might be supremely competent though bereft of a ‘bedside manner’.

In the UK, I believe the strategy is not just to use gas for wind back-up, but to establish a network of STOR (short term operating requirement?) diesel powered generator farms located on the outskirts of major conurbations to provide this. The generators are computer controlled and a hugely expensive way of producing electricity because of the subsidies involved. The Americans are making a fortune putting this capacity in stealthily while everyone’s not looking. I can’t find the link to the article I read about this. Sorry.

It is well-worth commenting on this STOR scheme. Earlier this year I came across the Fulcrum project near Plymouth in the South-West of England. A small proposed wind farm was backed-up by 20MW of diesel generators. The generators would be paid a small standby fee per hour, and a very large fee per hour of actual usage. As I calculated, the generators would only be used for an estimated 50 hours a year – 2% utilisation – with an average revenue of between £1.66 to £2.14 per Kwh. This compares to my last electricity bill of £0.10 per Kwh.(£1.00=US$1.64=A$1.80)
James Delingpole has called environmentalists “watermelons” – green on the outside, red on the inside. In Britain diesel for non-road use carries no excise duty, so it is dyed red to identify it. I noted that the UK is increasingly having a watermelon energy policy – green renewables on the outside, but red diesel as the core insurance against the lights going out.

Greame,
1. The STOR scheme is in control of the National Grid. Many of the generators are switched on remotely by the National Grid, so there is not much possibility of illicit generation taking place.
2. Of course. The STOR scheme was originally intended for emergencies – if a major power station went off-line for a few hours. Now it will be increasingly be when wind does not blow at time of peak demand.

I don’t know whether Big Oil and Gas is funding the anti nuclear movement, but they would have been delighted when Japan and then Germany announced they would decommission all their nuclear plants. I know those decisions are up for review now that the reality of the costs involved is starting to bite. but it certainly made Gas fuelled power stations look like a great option.

I should have written ‘anti nuclear power’ Sheri. But I probably don’t need to tell you that the Germans were the first to start work on building an atomic bomb. The allies were just fortunate that a lot of their nuclear physicist ended up in the US. There was no choice – it had to be built and built first by the allies. Germany, Russia and Japan were all working on an atomic bomb.

I’ve gone over the history of Hiroshima and Nagasaki from both the allied and Japanese perspective and have visited the Atomic Bomb memorial in Hiroshima. Every which way I look at it, I come to the conclusion that I would have been forced to make the same decision to use the Bomb on Hiroshima had I been president at the time. Things are not so clear cut about Nagasaki – there was some obvious deliberate withholding of information from the Russians about negotiations with the Japanese. There was also a lot of dissent among the Japanese themselves including an attempted coup.

That said, we can’t put our head in the sand about nuclear energy. It is clean, and will solve the problem in the future of declining fossil fuels. I am particularly interested in Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTR).

In his essay ‘Nuclear power is the only green solution’, British scientist James Lovelock stated that nuclear power is the only way to have a large human population on planet earth without causing global warming. Nuclear power istheonly technology that can produce an extremely high volume of energy using just a tiny amount of land and at reasonable cost, all without emitting significant amounts of greenhouse gases. The latter point being important is you believe man made carbon emissions, and in particular CO2 are responsible for global warming, and that the disadvantages of global warming out weigh the benefits.

It is a scientifically provable fact that the one and only energy source large enough and concentrated enough to practically replace earth’s massive fossil energy reservoir is nuclear power. The mass of an atom is in its nucleus, not in its electrons, and as E=MC 2 the nucleus is where the really BIG energy is stored.

The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) solves all of the major problems associated with nuclear power. LFTRs transform thorium into fissionable uranium-233, which then produces heat through controlled nuclear fission. LFTRs only requires input of uranium or plutonium to kick-start the initial nuclear reaction, and as the fissionable material can come from either spent fuelrods or old nuclear warheads, LFTRs will inevitably be used as waste disposal facilities to clean up old nuclear waste.

Once started, the controlled nuclear reactions are self-perpetuating as long as the reactor is fed thorium. LFTRs are highly fuel efficient and burn up 100% of the thorium fed them. Light water reactors typically burn only about 3% of their loaded fuel, or about 0.7% of the fundamental raw uranium which must be enriched to become fissionable. As LFTR fuel is a molten liquid salt, it can be cleansed of impurities and refortified with thorium through elaborate plumbing even while the reactor maintains full power operation. The cost savings of using a liquid fuel is like the difference between making soup vs. baking a wedding cake. Soup is cheap, and you can change ingredients very easily. LFTRs produce less than 1% of the long-lived radioactive waste of light water reactors, making large and remote area waste storage unnecessary.

LFTRs produce electric power via a waterless gas turbine system that can use helium, carbon dioxide, or nitrogen gas. The reactors are small and air cooled, so they can be installed anywhere, even in a desert. Robert Hargraves, an LFTR advocate, states that “Liquid fluoride thorium reactors operate at high temperature for 50% thermal/electrical conversion efficiency, thus they need only half of the cooling required by today’s coal or nuclear plant cooling towers.”

LFTRs will be manufactured on an assembly line, dramatically lowering costs and enabling electricity generation at a projected rate of about 3 cents per kilowatt hour, which is cheaper than burning coal for power. It has been estimated that a physically small 100 megawatt LFTR could be built for less than US$200 million dollars, which is a bargain. Multiple reactors can be installed at one location and connected to a single control room. With convenient modular design, LFTRs can be transported in pieces by truck or barge for easy assembly on site. This allows for swift construction with reliable results, avoiding delays and cost overruns. Rapid assembly line construction also allows for easy updating of the design, which will improve over time like the dramatic evolution of automobiles, airplanes, and computer chips.

A LFTR can never meltdown because its fuel is already in a molten state by design. Any terrorists who obtained forceful entry into the reactor complex could not realistically remove any of the hot molten fissionable fuel. Coolant in LFTRs is not pressurized as in light water reactors, and the fuel arrives at the plant pre-burned with fluorine, a powerful oxidizer. This makes a reactor fire or a coolant explosion impossible.

LFTRs do not require large, cavernous pressure vessels designed to contain an internal explosion of super heated steam, so LFTR enclosures are tightly fitting and compact, which makes them less expensive. The reactors will be installed underground with a thick reinforced concrete cap, making an attack by a kamikaze airplane pilot ineffective. Over heating of a LFTR expands the molten salt fuel past its criticality point, making the design intrinsically safe due to the unchangeable laws of physics. Even a total loss of operational reactor control would not cause disaster. In addition to the fuel’s natural safety, any excess heat in the reactor core would automatically melt built-in freeze-plugs, causing the liquid fuel to drain via gravity into underground storage compartments where the fuel would then cool into a harmless, non critical mass.

Thorium is more abundant in the earth’s crust than tin, and only slightly less abundant than lead. The United States alone has hundreds, if not thousands of years worth of low cost thorium fuel available from domestic sources, and total world thorium supplies are enormous, with estimates ranging from a 10,000 year supply, to a supply lasting millions of years. Until now thorium has been a waste product that has been thrown away by burying it in deserts and in old mine shafts. If we really wanted to find thorium with the same interest we have in finding oil, we could probably obtain more thorium than the human race will ever need to use.

NASA rocket scientist Kirk Sorensen stated that “The amount of thorium it would take to power my whole life is the size of a marble that would fit in my hand. The amount of coal that would power my life would bury my yard to 30 or 40 feet.”

France’s Reactor Physics Group is currently leading in LFTR research. If Australia and other countries including the US committed a relatively modest amount of money to develop LFTRs in cooperation with France, a fully operational TOTAL ENERGY SOLUTION might be possible within as little as 5 years, because most of the basic research has already been accomplished and is well proven.

LFTR research at the United States Oak Ridge National Laboratory was ended in 1976 because LFTRs cannot practically produce usable nuclear weapons materials.

We can significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions by creating an infrastructure based on thorium power, improved electric car battery technology, and the use of other technologies including efficient recycling. If you want the world to progress to the kind of wealthy, poverty free civilization portrayed in optimistic science fiction movies, nuclear power is the only way to get there.﻿

What are the costs? (In $US numbers)
The Energy Information Administration(EIA),which provides official energy statistics from the United States Government, has projected the estimated cost of electricity from U.S. power plants of different varieties that will come into service in the year 2016. These average comparative costs, expressed in 2007 valued dollars, includes all costs of construction, financing, fuel, and all other operating and decommissioning costs. The EIA also listed the expected Capacity Factor (CF) for each power plant type. A power plant with a CF of 85 generates energy at its rated capacity an average of 85% of the time during a given year. The ideal power plant would have a CF of 100, meaning it could output energy at full power 100% of the time. As capacity factor drops, economic efficiency drops, usefulness drops, and real-world costs increase.

In the comparison below I have inflated the projected cost of electricity produced by LFTRs from the EIA projected 3 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) to 6 cents per kWh in order to allow for the typical underestimates and unexpected cost overruns which come with new technology. It is me being conservative.

Conventional Coal @ 9.3 per cents per kWh (85 CF) – Not carbon free; medium footprint, causes approximately 24,000 U.S. deaths per year due to air pollution, which also damages buildings. Judged in total, coal is not cost effective due to the environmental damage it creates.

3rd Generation Light Water Reactor Nuclear Power @ 10.48 cents per kWh (90 CF) – Carbon free; small footprint, very high CF, and cost effective.***Note – These figures are for new construction projects coming on-line in 2016. The US’s older legacy light water reactors currently produce electricity at a cost of about 2 cents per kWh.

Wind @ 11.55 cents per kWh not including the cost of needed energy storage systems (35.1 CF) – Carbon free; extremely large footprint, not cost effective due to unreliability and very low CF. Most wind turbines shut down when wind speeds drop below 3 to 4 meters per second or rise above 25 meters per second, greatly reducing their total average energy output and making their contribution to a nation’s energy grid unreliable, unpredictable, and unnecessarily costly.

Solar Thermal Mirror Oven @ 25.75 cents per kWh not including the cost of needed energy storage systems (31.2 CF) – Carbon free, extremely large foot print, not cost effective due to unreliability, high construction cost, and a CF even lower than wind power.

Solar Photovoltaic Panel Power Plant @38.54 cents per kWh not including the cost of needed energy storage systems (21.7 CF) – Carbonfree; extremely large footprint; very high construction cost; cannot be updated after manufacture, relatively short lifespan, the lowest CF of all. Solar panels are absolutely not cost effective for large scale power production.

So if you are serious about saving the environment and achieving clean and cheap, dependable power, open your mind to Nuclear – LFTR that is.

Of course in the wake of Fukushima many people want to have nothing to do with nuclear power, or they might say it’s all very well to talk about LFTR’s but we need to shut down all existing nuclear plants because of the danger they represent to human safety. Well even based on current technology nuclear power way more people die every year from Coal, Oil, Gas, Solar, Bio-fuel, Hydro and Wind power sources than from Nuclear:

This has been obvious for years, while the drama greens bloviate on about big oil, most of them are on the payroll.
The Climate Gate emails only confirmed this, the funding of anti oil groups here in Canada is easily traced back to competing oil producers.
Some things never change, as govt expands it becomes a useful tool to strangle competition.
Shell, BP and GE all profit from the CAGW activists.
Follow the money, see who has benefited form professional activists.
Being a “caring concerned global citizen” has become a very lucrative act.

Perhaps it is timely to re print an exchange on this site from a few years ago.
I had been hearing about an Australian company spruiking its coal to gas to liquid plans &was interested to get an unbiased outline from a source without commercial ties.
In light of the balance of payments for Aus & the mooted source funding of some of the “more hands on socio political aggravation around the world, I could not for the life of me understand why this technology was not front & centre of many nation’s energy security agendas which by default directly affects national standards of living & sovereignty.
I put a question out there & it was responded to by Richard Courtney .
Sorry for the length of this , but I believe it is worth the effort.
Judging by even a cursory look at Richard’s standing & achievements , his response is worth careful consideration:-

pattoh
November 26, 2010 at 12:24 pm
Ahoy Richard & other distinguished bloggers
Having for some time been enlightened & entertained by the articles & dialogue on this site, it is abundantly clear that many of the regular contributors speak with authority backed by knowledge & understanding which only comes with hands on inquiry & experience.
While this absurd palm oil development is under the spotlight consideration should turn to other realistic alternatives.
Any rational assessment of the needs agriculture & transport systems as necessary to support the demand of world’s societies must include the energy sources driving them. To function effectively these must be portable, independent & produce high energy per unit of mass &/or volume & be economically viable. At present liquid hydrocarbons represent the only real option which fits the bill.
Recently here in Australia there has been quite a bit of development in Coal Seam Gas.
This is intended either for domestic consumption & power generation or for export after liquefaction.
Previously Australia toyed with oil shale & a trial plant was built a few years ago but I understand the pollution & production efficiency issues proved to be too problematic. (along with the NIMBYs)
However a few proposals are in play for converting coal to gas & then gas to liquid. (diesel & naphtha equivalents) as a replication of the processes developed in Germany during WW2 & more recently employed by South Africa (SASOL?)
The question is what would the comparative cost be to produce diesel & kerosene as opposed to traditional refining of crude? What comparative environmental costs are associated with surface or in ground gassification prior to liquefaction?
And on a different level:- If the costs are comparable or less, what does this mean for the geo-political balance of the world? (& big oil)
Could the anti everything Greenpeace types ever be convinced that digging something up & using it may actually be the best solution this side of a mass cull of humanity?
________________________________________
Richard S Courtney
November 26, 2010 at 8:52 pm
Pattoh:
At #54 you ask (I think me):
The question is what would the comparative cost be to produce diesel & kerosene as opposed to traditional refining of crude? What comparative environmental costs are associated with surface or in ground gassification prior to liquefaction?
And on a different level:- If the costs are comparable or less, what does this mean for the geo-political balance of the world? (& big oil).
Wow! Those questions are far, far too big for an adequate answer here, but I will provide some responses.
The most important fact concerning these issues is the existence of the novel liquid solvent extraction (LSE) process. LSE has been capable of converting coal to synthetic crude oil (syncrude) at competitive cost to crude oil since 1994.
The LSE process was developed by the Coal Research Establishment (CRE) of British Coal (aka the National Coal Board: NCB). I worked on its development while at CRE and UNESCO commissioned a paper about it from me. We proved the process both technically and economically with a demonstration plant built and operated at Point Of Ayr in North Wales.
British Coal was owned by the UK government and ownership of the LSE process devolved to the government when the government abolished British Coal. There are good reasons why details of the LSE process are a state secret (see below), but the basic method is as follows.
LSE dissolves the coal in a solvent in an ebullating bed at high temperature and pressure. The solution includes hydrogen (obtained from coal and water by a ‘water gas shift’) that combines with the dissolved coal to form syncrude in the presence of a zeolite catalyst. The proportions of the various hydrocarbons (i.e. oil fractions) in the resulting syncrude are ‘tuned’ by adjusting the temperasture and pressure while the hydrogenation of dissolved coal occurs. Reducing the temperature and pressure causes the syncrude to come out of solution, and the solvent is returned to the start of the process for reuse.
The surprising economics of LSE are provided by its abilities to be tuned to provide syncrude that provides a match of refinery products which match market demand, and to consume sulphurous refinery bottoms.
An oil refinery separates crude oil into its component parts for sale. These components must match market demand: obtaining a correct amount of one fraction (e.g. kerosene) must not provide too little or too much of any other fraction (e.g. benzene). Disposal of an excess of a fraction has disposal cost and a shortage of a product causes market difficulties. This match to market demand is achieved by blending. Crude oils from different places has different proportions of components. So, an oil refinery obtains crude oils from different places, mixes them together such that the resulting blend consists of components that match market demand when they are separated by refining.
Blending has costs. Different crudes have to be obtained from different places then transported to the refinery and mixed in correct proportions. LSE product does not have these costs because the LSE process can be tuned to provide syncrude which has components that match market demand when they are separated by refining.
Crude oil contains sulphur that forms sulphurous ‘bottoms’ in the refinery process. Disposal of these ‘bottoms’ is expensive. But sulphur is removed from the syncrude during the LSE process and becomes part of a solid cake consisting mostly of ash minerals and some carbon (LSE converts more than 98% of the carbon in the coal to syncrude). The cake can be burned as fuel in a fluidised bed, and the sulphur then collected can be converted to saleable gypsum as a product. Hence, the oil refinery obtains no sulphurous ’bottoms’ when refining the syncrude.
The UK government owns the LSE process. But the UK produces little coal (because it closed its coal industry) and produces crude oil. Importantly, the UK produces Brent crude that has high value because it blends with Saudi crude (i.e. the cheapest crude). The required Saudi:Brent blend has approximate proportions of 2:1).
Use of the LSE process would collapse the value of Brent crude with resulting severe harm to the UK economy. So, details of the LSE process are a UK state secret.
However, the existence of the LSE process constrains the maximum price of crude oil. If the price were to rise sufficiently then the UK would benefit from release for use of the LSE technology.
In the future (at least 50 years and probably more than 100 years in the future), oil will become scarce if it continues to be used. In that circumstance crude oil supplies would become very expensive. The LSE product could be adopted as a replacement for crude oil. But the world will then be a very different place, so there is no purpose in considering what may/could/would then happen.
I hope this answer is sufficient.
Richard

Coal-to-liquids is increasingly being used in China. I came across a scheme at Ningxia, mid-China where there is soon to be the capacity to produce 140,000 bpd of diesel equivalent. In terms of resources, it uses huge amounts of water, produces vast amounts of CO2 and four to five tonnes of coal to produce a tonne of oil. So why do it? In China they can produce their own oil from coal for a certain price equivalent to $65 a barrel, or import it for a variable price of $100-$140 per barrel.
Now what if Australia were to do something similar with it’s coal? Do you think that becoming self-sufficient in oil at a fixed price might help or hinder Australia’s long-term economic growth?

My initial blog question was put up after I had been told by an employee of a major coal company ( late 2010) that an Australian figure was $A58 p bbl eq. No explanation as to whether that was the process cost to generate the fuel or all up including coal.

I originally engaged in that discussion couching the “cost” question in terms of comparative barrel price leading up to the GFC V1.0. i.e well over US$100.00
It had me stumped as to why China, the US, all the EU countries & Australia were depending on imported fuel.

South Africa has been producing liquid fuel from coal for donkeys years largely because of sanctions imposed during the apartheid years (see Sasol). It’s doable. The sort of thing that would give Shell and the likes the heebie jeebies.

Thanks Pattoh for that informative perspective which I think clearly delineates the prime and real motivation of the whole CAGW circus. It all becomes pretty clear now how Big Oil, threatened by Big Coal’s potential to cruel its profit margin by forcing a reduction in the inflated costs of crude oil, has sought to vilify and discredit its main competitor, while simultaneously profit by “investment” in renewables which cannot hope to compete against them (and hence are no threat whatsoever). Oil companies know that wind and solar in their present form will do nothing to compromise their market, and they can skim profits in selling outmoded ineffective and outdated technology, at a premium to boot. Then they can sell the alternatives as “back up” for the failures (diesel and gas -entirely predictable) of these same outmoded technologies to deliver reliably, again at a premium.

Imagine if Syncrude had actually been allowed into the market fairly and unhindered in 1994, and without compromise as a free market should, thereby immediately dragging the price of oil down by a quarter to a half so that consumers would reap the benefits through cheaper transport, cheaper travel and reduced commodity costs, and governments which are so addicted to fuel excise would also have to take a huge hit to revenues (so little wonder they turn a “blind” eye).

You’ve got to hand it to the Green movement, and all the apologist trolls who come here spruiking a fantasy “clean” energy future. Big Oil has gamed them beautifully (even by having Exxon as a token villain by throwing a few pennies the way of skeptics, then publicising the fact), and the eco-loons have acted like the utter idiots they are in ensuring that the very fossil fuels they profess to abhor are here for far longer (and a lot dirtier) than they would have had natural technological progress been allowed to occur. I wonder how the Big Oil companies could rely on the Green movement acolytes not to twig to the real motivation of the scam? I wonder indeed.

The gas industry promotes its low greenhouse gas emissions at the point of combustion but does not mention significant greenhouse gas emissions at the point of extraction (CO2 and CH4) and leakage of CH4 during pipeline transport. Some raw gas fields contain as much as 50% CO2; which needs to be removed at the wellhead – this being vented to atmosphere. These are significant components of the life cycle emissions of the fuel. Out of sight out of mind.

“A 2013 study by NOAA found leaks from oil and gas exploration and extraction in the L.A. basin representing “about 17% of the natural gas produced in the region.”

And The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported recently that methane is a far more potent a greenhouse gas than we had previously realized, some 34 times stronger a heat-trapping gas than CO2 over a 100-year time scale — and 86 times more potent over a 20-year time frame.

Yet these IPCC idiots won’t worry about that, there’s too much money to collect from Shell pushing the STOP Coal the barrow and collecting CO2 Taxes.

Plus methane gas etc as a GREEN fuel source has a huge Greenhouse Gas potential compared to emissions from coal. But why would Shell give out leakage rates of some little methane leaks.

Nobias & Dave you are wrong about methane as a “greenhouse” gas in its molecular gaseous form. Look at post #3. There no scientific evidence in any report from the IPCC, the US EPA, IEA or any organisation that shows methane (CH4) absorbs or emits more radiant energy than carbon dioxide (CO2) or water vapor (H2O). On the other hand, there have been measurements to show that methane gas is insignificant compared to CO2 & H2O for a start look in Perry’s Chemical Engineering Handbook (Chapter 5 Heat & mass transfer) and trace back reference to test work.
The various figures (21, 25 & Dave’s new 34) for gaseous CH4 being worse than CO2 are green propaganda. I would like to see a Royal Commission on all aspects of the supposed greenhouse gas issue. Prejury can result in jail (note Justice Einfeld). I would bet many like Prof Ian Lowe (who should have been convicted for perjury in a 2007 case in which he was was to be exaggerating by 15 times) would not be willing to appear before a Royal Commission. I have appeared in court and before a senate inquiry and given expert evidence under oath and would be happy to do so at a Royal commission.

I would bet many like Prof Ian Lowe (who should have been convicted for perjury in a 2007 case in which he was was to be exaggerating by 15 times) would not be willing to appear before a Royal Commission.

All witnesses are compelled to appear and fully answer any questions when subpoenaed by a Royal Commission.

BTW Ian Lowe was originally trained as a nuclear physicist. Just saying.

Unlike rape, illegal slush funds, fraud, starting race riots, corrupt licencing deals, bearing false witness to statutory declarations, and the one hundred and one other things that apparently pass for “business as usual” in the Labor Party.

Mary Poppins may be able to slide up the banister instead of down but the man behind the curtain is the guy who counts. Gillard, like all humans throughout history who gained noticeable power over others, depends on the willing support of many others behind the scenes. Our job, if we can do it, is to change the hearts and minds of those “many others”.

If we cannot manage to do that then the removal of Gillard by the voters will have been but a minor setback to the left’s agenda.

And to top it all off, there’s no warming going on that anyone with an ounce of good judgment would worry about and no evidence that greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere do much of anything in the first place.

Off Topic;
If the very considerable proportion of the Saturday’s Australian newspaper that is devoted to unveiling and analysing the activities and the rigid left wing ideological straight jacket that the ABC operates within are any indication, the ABC is being set up for a major politically motivated hatchet job to be done on it at the board, executive and news and current affairs levels in the not very distant future.

Just doing a hatchet job on these sections of the ABC would leave the pollies claiming that the bulk of the ABC for which it’s original charter was drawn up was to present material that was neutral and was not commercially viable for commercial news organisations.
The pollies will no doubt claim that ABC charter was still intact and therefore any political interference was only on a small part of the overall ABC structure and was done so as to bring the wayward sections [ rampant left wing promoting news and current affairs ] of the ABC back to the spirit of the charter in the unbiased, neutral and accurate reporting required by it’s original charter.

Can’t happen fast enough for me.To think that MY tax dollars are paying for these Green-Nazis to spread all this BS,really needs to be stopped.I have Emailed Our ABC many times in the past and either been completely ignored or told Tough Titties.

.
Much as I’d desperately like to agree with you ROM, I’m afraid Mike Scott being able to deliberately and willfully contravene Section 79 (1c) of the Crimes Act, and walk away without so much as even a verbal rebuke from the PM or the government, tends to suggest exactly the opposite.

It appears that the left-wing, latte-sipping intelligentsia set, which already controls our bureaucracies, universities and education system, is now firmly in the driver’s seat as far as actually running the country is concerned, a fact not lost on our Asian neighbours like Indonesia and China.

To these people “face” is everything, and to them Abbott and the LNP just demonstrated they could be spat on with impunity.
They may as well resign now and save us all three years of misery.

BIG things are happening to our North, and we need some BIG men and women in government to handle it.
The current crowd just aren’tup to the task.

Normally I’m reluctant to further expand an off-topic posting. But, in this exceptional case, here goes…

ROM, I’m totally in sympathy with what Greg Sheridan, Michael Smith and Grace Collier all write at some length in today’s Australian. But I would go much further.

I’m not totally familiar with the ABC’s charter, but I know it essentially followed the spirit of the BBC’s founding charter, expounded by Lord Reith in 1922 – “to educate, inform and entertain” (presumably in that order).
Please note: the word “indoctrinate” does not appear, yet the inescapable conclusion today must be that indoctrination is precisely what the ABC has industriously been doing.

It’s uncertain how long this has been going on but certainly the ABC is not a lone player here, it’s an important part of a not-so covert socialist network involving Fairfax, the Guardian and the ALP.

Fairfax and the Guardian are essentially transcontinental twins in philosophy, content, declining circulation and downward spiraling financials – that much, and their agenda, is obvious. It’s unclear to me why the Guardian Australia launched 6 months ago, it seems a trivial distraction. If it was meant to be a stalking horse of some kind, it made its appearance far too late to maintain that kind of cover. The cross-syndication between Fairfax and Guardian was obvious long before then.

Now for the third limb of the tripod – the ABC. It’s blatantly nowadays little more than the broadcast arm of Fairfax/Guardian, and arrogantly does very little indeed to conceal this. Unluckily for them, the tripod historically has always been shown to be the least stable of all structures. At least that’s what we must hope for.

That’s my interpretation of the background. As far as the Snowden releases go, this was manifestly not in Australia’s national interest, for many excellent reasons. It’s (arguably) sedition and might even be – an extreme interpretation – treason. In war, it would probably be high treason. But I’m not a lawyer so I’m wide open to correction here.

The blatancy of Fairfax/ABC here is puzzling. It seems self-destructive. But perhaps that’s exactly the suicidal route they have decided to take – go down in defiant flames screaming whatever is the journalistic equivalent of “Allah is great!”.

Sigh. Like ROM, I think corrective action to the ABC is now inevitable, though Abbott may give it a little more time to spin itself a longer rope. He’d be reluctant to seem to be a dictatorial PM hastily crushing “brave, independent commentary”. So, sorry MV, I can’t agree with your first paragraph.

Anyway, it’ll be extremely interesting to see how things develop in the next few months.

Scott and everybody involved at the ABC, the Guardian, and Fairfax, who had access to the documents, were aware of their content, and nonetheless aided or assisted in their publication, stand guilty as (should have been) charged.
All that’s in debate is which sub-section of Part 79 action should (have) be(en) proceeded under.

Scott should have been charged with further offences, first as a public servant of the Commonwealth releasing secret information to the detriment of the country’s national security (criminal charges), and secondly on the basis of of betrayal of trust between an employer and an employee (civil charges).

it’ll be extremely interesting to see how things develop in the next few months.

No, it’s going to be extremely devastating to see how things develop in the next few months. The Yanks have already ‘fessed up and told us that the info taken by Snowden includes some 2,000 documents “potentially embarrassing to Australia, particularly with regard to our Asian neighbours, and especially so with Japan and China”.

What you are going to see over the next few months is just how (in)effectively a government can manage, when any and every initiative they attempt to take, which isn’t to the liking of those now running the show, is effectively derailed and sidelined by the release some new revelation guaranteed to create some form of international diplomatic crisis.

In Jakarta the newspapers are publishing a cartoon of Abbott peering through a bedroom door while masturbating, and in inner city Melbourne and Sydney the Latte-Left are hi-fiving each other.

.
In any sane country it would be considered national sabotage and treason – firing squad material.
Instead, our government grovels to curry favour from both the ABC and the corrupt Indonesian regime.

I appreciate your angry frustration and I respect your opinion on this sorry mess. I just don’t hold that particular opinion at the moment.

I’m fully aware that the rather imprecise terms “sedition” and “treason” had essentially been subsumed into the Crimes Act, and their meaning sharpened thereby. (I’m sometimes too nostalgic for old language, it’s often so much more elegant.)

But I’m cautiously confident the ABC will eventually be dealt with, as will the Gillard thingy. It just takes time.

Scott and everybody involved at the ABC, the Guardian, and Fairfax, who had access to the documents, were aware of their content, and nonetheless aided or assisted in their publication, stand guilty as (should have been) charged.

Hopefully it would be jail, as it would be a lot cheaper than their current pay schedule, but if they are not jailed and only sacked, then we will have hundreds of useless unemployable dimwits on the dole, but still cheaper.

Although I can’t see any Government with big enough baalls to carry this through.

Perhaps little remembered now, apart from those who were actually involved, but Shell invested big-time in Aus coal deposits in the ’80′s

So convinced were Shell of their investment abilities and the power of big money (“of course coal mining is ok for us, we’re already in the energy business”) that the Exec totally ignored seasoned geological advice and spent up big aquiring 3rd rate, mediocre properties for exploration both in Q’ld and NSW

Said exploration was duly done and showed in detail the mediocrity (both structure and quality) of the properties, confirming the initial geological advice

The product sale price slowly dropped during the decade. Exit Shell, shorn of many hundreds of millions of $$$, to emerge decades later as a sworn enemy of that which they were incompetent at managing earlier

UN carbon offset market seen “in a coma” for years after Warsaw
LONDON, Nov 29 (Reuters) – The U.N.’s carbon offset market is likely to remain “in a coma” for years, project developers said, after countries failed to agree on measures to encourage demand at last week’s climate talks in Warsaw…http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/reutersnews/1.3144328

EU carbon down 9.4 pct in Nov. as supply curbs seen distant
LONDON, Nov 29 (Reuters) – EU carbon fell 9.4 percent in November as lawmakers advanced a plan to cut supply but were unable to move fast enough to block an influx of government permits depressing the markethttp://www.pointcarbon.com/news/reutersnews/1.3147483

30 Nov: AFR: Anne Hyland: Clean Energy profits up in smoke
(ANONYMOUS)The talk behind closed doors in Parliament House is how hellbent the Abbott government is on “murdering Labor’s children”…
On the sacrificial altar are the carbon tax, the Gonski funding model for educational reform and now the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.
Getting rid of the CEFC makes sense to few business people who have observed its commercial success in its short existence…
Its chairman, respected businesswoman Jillian Broadbent, fronted a Senate inquiry on Tuesday and made a compelling case for the organisation to continue its work in providing a source of finance to renewable energy, energy-efficiency and low emissions technologies, alongside private sector banks and superannuation funds***.
But her plea fell on deaf ears…
The $10 billion CEFC was created by the Labor government, after a review showed the market was failing in delivering money to renewable and energy-efficiency industries that could help reduce carbon emissions…
About 14 organisations similar to the CEFC exist globally, predominantly in Europe and the US…
Broadbent, an economist by training, is one of the most respected and successful businesswomen in Australia.
She rose through the Reserve Bank’s ranks, became a successful fund manager at the legendary Bankers Trust, then a board director on some of Australia’s biggest companies. She also returned to her roots to become one of the longest serving directors on the Reserve Bank board.
She says the private sector expenditure in this area will dry up or be at a much lower level if the CEFC is abolished…
***“It wasn’t there before we started. It’s disappointing a tool that is fiscally responsible and effective is being abandoned. That’s the frustration we have. It’s also disappointing that it’s so politicised. You just want to get on with what you think is in the public good, which is positioning Australia for a low carbon world.”…
Broadbent says there are many barriers for private financiers in this area and these may include the size of the loan being too small, the project too complex or an unfamiliarity with the risk.

***“There are new areas of risk which financiers don’t tend to go to very readily and there has been a retreat of the European banks from this market who were active in this space.”…

The CEFC board is made up of an impressive collection of former investment bankers and executives from energy or legal backgrounds, whose commerciality and experience has helped draw private sector financiers into investing in these new technologies. Management is also weighted heavily from those sectors…
(ANONYMOUS) Ministers within the Abbott government who disagree with the closure of the CEFC have privately said they want the government to give it at least another year or two to continue to prove the model.http://www.afr.com/p/national/clean_energy_profits_up_in_smoke_qQFE6H3pjYYoCcKnOim9cL

30 Nov: Bloomberg: EDF Competes With GDF Suez to Win French Wind-Power Projects
by Tara Patel & Francois de Beaupuy
Electricite de France SA and GDF Suez SA (GSZ), the country’s biggest gas and power utilities, are vying to develop two 500-megawatt wind projects off northwestern France in a push to expand clean-energy output…
The country has outlined plans to add 6,000 megawatts of offshore wind, tidal and wave power by 2020 and scale back nuclear energy…http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-29/edf-competes-with-gdf-suez-to-win-french-offshore-wind-projects.html

I am always drawn back to the simplest of all diagrams, and probably the least understood of all, mostly because it just looks so simple, and yet, no one has any real clue as to what it actually indicates.

Now, when I started out with all this nearly six years back now, this diagram, something that I have always been aware of, coming from the electrical trade, was what I thought of as the canary in the coal mine if you’ll excuse the analogy, an indicator that would show me if and when anything might be happening, but oddly, it has stayed the same over those 6 years, despite the considerable ramping up of renewables, and the considerable bad news directed towards coal fired power.

This Load Curve shown here is a typical Summer curve (say an average of 4/5 Months). A typical Winter Curve has 2 distinct peaks, a smaller one around 5 to 7AM, and the larger around 4 to 6PM.

However, what does not change ….. EVER, is the low point of the dip around 2 to 4AM every morning, year in year out. Everything below that dip is what is referred to as the Base Load (two words) in other words electrical power which is required absolutely for 24 hours of every day, so that’s 24/7/365. That comes in at around 60 to 65% of every single Watt of power which can be generated. This diagram looks the same for the U.S. as well, just a different scale, but everywhere, that 60 to 65% is a constant. For Australia, that Base Load, indicated there as around 18,000MW comes in at close to 160TWH of consumption, out of an Australian Maximum consumption of around 260TWH Peak. In the US, that Base Load total is around 2360TWH, and hey, notice something here, that ratio is around the same as the population ratio 14/15 to 1. In China it also looks the same, only a little higher than for the U.S. which makes you wonder as the population is even greater again, but China is expanding that Base Load capability to actually cope with its move towards Industrialisation, and that will only keep getting bigger, and there’s nothing we can do about that at all.

I have coloured in this Australian curve for ease of explanation. All the pink is the base load. Here in Oz, that is virtually all coal fired, with some Hydro, (tiny) and some gas fired. (also tiny)

The Blue is virtually all gas fired, some coal, the remaining Hydro, and some others as well.

The yellow along the bottom is Wind, currently around 2.1% of all Oz power. All the solar is inconsequential, even rooftop, around the thickness of the black line of the Curve itself from 6AM till 6PM.

Now, everywhere, and let me stress everywhere, this curve and those ratios for Wind and solar are around the same. The U.S. has around 2.9% of Wind, and Solar is even less, around 0.1%. China is around the same, with less wind, and less solar percentages than the U.S.

The only variables are in the pink areas. The U.S. has Nuclear Power (almost 20% of the total consumption) to add to 39% from coal fired sources, hence that 60+% in the pink area when added to Hydro and some Gas.

China has huge Hydro, almost 23% of all power to add to huge coal fired power, (nearly all of it new) and Nuclear power as well.

So then, back to the topic.

As long as that ratio of pink is kept, then all the rest is virtually nothing, just Companies scamming the electrical system (hence consumers) for money.

Wind in the U.S. has ramped up beyond comprehension to the point that it now has considerably more Capacity just from wind alone, than Australia has from EVERY power generating source, and yet all that wind in the U.S. still has not reached enough to supply the Base Load for Australia.

At the same time in the U.S. coal fired power has shut down in huge amounts, all of them old, (50 years Plus) all of them small to tiny, and ALL of it and MORE totally replaced by Natural Gas fired power, which has ramped up even faster than any of the Renewables.

What has not changed in the U.S. is the number of large scale coal fired plants, and while here that means Plants of 2000+MW, nothing over 750MW has closed in the last 6 years, so that Base Load always has good coverage, and with those large scale plants all aging as well, and now the EPA virtually ensuring no more coal fired plants get built, they are getting back into constructing new Nukes, so that when those old coal fired plants do go to heaven, there will be replacement power for Base Load Coverage.

China, well they just power ahead, quite literally, with new everything.

Germany is building new large scale coal fired plants.

Some Countries are behind the 8 Ball, but be aware that no matter how much renewable power gets ramped up, it will NEVER take over supplying the most maligned and misunderstood term in this whole debate ….. BASE LOAD.

That has to be covered.

Long and involved I know, but there are people who want to know this stuff. The Greens, well, it goes so far over their heads, all they hear is whoosh! The rest of us, well, we need some small modicum of reassurance that can only come with full explanation, and the beginning of an understanding. I don’t claim to know it all, but I can at least give some sort of indication.

Remember how I rabbit on about how all the coal fired power that has been closing in the U.S. Now, all along, for 6 years now I’ve been trying to say the while Wind power is ramping up at a huge rate, especially in the U.S. then probably an argument could be put that Wind is in fact replacing coal fired power.

NOTHING, and let me repeat that word, NOTHING could be further from the truth.

As I have said all along, and been laughed at for saying it, ALL the coal that is closing down are small to tiny plants and all of them ancient, quite literally. None of the Majors, those large scale coal fired plants (750+MW) are closing.

29 Nov: Bloomberg: Chisaki Watanabe: Fukushima Floating Offshore Wind Project Seeks to Halve Cost
Operators of a wind farm in waters off Fukushima prefecture, site of the March 2011 nuclear disaster, aim to cut the cost of setting up the floating turbines by half as they push to commercialize the technology.
The pilot project, funded by the government and led by trading house Marubeni Corp. began operations on Nov. 11 with a 2-megawatt turbine connected to a substation. Both are about 20 kilometers (12 miles) off the coast of Fukushima. The project’s second phase will see the installation of two more turbines from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. with 7 megawatts capacity each…
“The most important thing for the first phase was to float the turbine and make it work, rather than the cost,” Tomofumi Fukuda, a Marubeni official, said earlier this month in Fukushima after a ceremony to mark the start of operations. “For the second phase, it will become very important to figure out how to reduce costs to commercialize the technology.” …
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s Cabinet has set a target of making floating offshore wind technology viable by 2018…
Manufacturing and installing the 2-megawatt wind power generation system, which is able to generate power for about 1,700 homes, cost slightly more than 2 million yen ($20,000) per kilowatt, Fukuda said. Operators want to reduce that to 1 million yen per kilowatt by the second phase when the next two turbines are installed, he said…
The goal is to eventually cut the cost to 500,000 yen per kilowatt for a project with a capacity factor, or how often a generator runs during a certain period of time, of 40 percent, according to Fukuda. Onshore wind projects typically operate at 250,000 yen per kilowatt and a capacity factor of 20 percent, he said.
“It cost us more than we’d anticipated to set up the station,” Keisuke Murakami, an official in charge of the program at the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, said…
***Costs for the project escalated partly because of seas conditions and high waves from a typhoon that prevented workers from reaching the site.
***The 2018 target for Japan is “challenging,” BNEF’s Wu said. “The real cost cutting comes from doing a lot of it,” he said…
The government has committed 22 billion yen to the five-year project, surpassing the original budget of 18.8 billion yen. For the fiscal year starting April 1, the trade ministry is requesting 31 billion yen…http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-28/fukushima-floating-offshore-wind-project-seeks-to-halve-cost.html

29 Nov: Huffington Post: EBRD Energy Investments Do Right By the Planet
by Riccardo Puliti, Managing Director, Energy and Natural Resources, EBRD (European Bank for Reconstruction and Development)
We read this week’s piece by WWF’s Samantha J Smith with interest but the picture she painted is a far cry from what we have in fact been doing. The EBRD is the largest investor in energy efficiency and renewable energy in the region where we operate. We have financed some of the largest wind parks. We have invested over €2 billion into renewable energy directly and an additional €760 million through credit lines to local banks since 2006. By way of comparison, our total energy and natural resources portfolio since 2006 is €8.8 billion, of which only six per cent is coal-related. Crucially, we have also worked with countries in the Western Balkans as well as other countries such as Kazakhstan and Ukraine to develop renewable energy legislation – thus enabling the development of a sustainable renewable energy industry. We made these investments possible in countries that traditionally rely on coal. For example, we financed the construction of the first wind farm in Mongolia – a country which sits on vast coal reserves. Currently we are considering the first wind farm in fossil-rich Kazakhstan. In Turkey alone, EBRD-financed renewable energy can light homes for 4 million people. We have heard a lot of comment from anti-coal campaigners in the last several months, especially during the public consultation period for the new energy strategy. Their opinion is important to us, as are opinions of all stakeholders. But presenting the EBRD as the last institution that clings to coal and focuses on fossil fuels is incorrect on many levels…
The piece ignores the fact that most of our work with fossil fuels is centred on energy efficiency improvements, environmental clean-up, gas flaring reduction or helping economies switch from coal to gas. In addition to these investments, we finance not only renewables but also smart grids, smart meters and both supply and demand-side energy efficiency projects. Our investments in the energy and natural resources sector since 2006 have resulted in an annual reduction of CO2 emissions equal to the entire emissions of the Slovak Republic. The EBRD’s sustainable energy investments have topped €12 billion in the same period…
We will continue our strong support for renewables, energy efficiency projects, smart grids and meters. In addition, we will help countries switch from coal to gas where possible. In alignment with other IFIs, such as the World Bank, we will only finance coal-fired power generation in rare and exceptional circumstances.
***Specifically we can see these circumstances in a country like Mongolia. The country needs to heat homes in the winter which renewable electricity cannot do, it has access to no other fuel, and it needs to replace old coal plants which are environmentally disastrous. It needs highly-efficient, modern combined heat and power plants built according to the best available standards…
The issue of coal has become a focus of a campaign by activists concerned with climate change – and I want to reiterate that we share those concerns. Just yesterday we arranged a loan for Russia’s InterRAO for €280 million equivalent in roubles to move away from old coal-fired power plants in the Urals industrial heartland, by decommissioning them and switching to a much more efficient and environmentally friendly combined-cycle gas turbine…http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/riccardo-puliti/ebrd-energy-investments_b_4356006.html

25 Nov: ComputerWorldUK: All consumers must be offered energy smart meters by autumn 2015
British Gas has started rollout
The project involves installing 53 million smart meters in over 30 million properties…
While smart meters will end overcharging through the widespread use of estimated bills by the energy companies, there may be some disquiet over the government using over £10 billion of taxpayers’ money in building the smart metering network those same energy companies are using…
She (Baroness Verma, Department of Energy & Climate Change parliamentary under secretary of state) said consumers will have a choice over who has access to their smart meter data, except where the data is needed to fulfill regulated duties…
The Data and Communications Company will be responsible for linking the 53 million smart electricity and gas meters in homes and small businesses with energy suppliers, network operators and energy service companies.http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/infrastructure/3490766/all-consumers-must-be-offered-energy-smart-meters-by-autumn-2015/

31 Oct: 4-Traders: Centrica PLC : British Gas responds to annual energy statement
Responding to the statement made by Ed Davey, Secretary of State for Energy & Climate Change, Ian Peters, Managing Director of Residential Energy at British Gas, said:
“Rebuilding trust in Britain’s energy market is a top priority, which is why we strongly support the proposals outlined by the Secretary of State today…
“In the long-term, the introduction of smart meters to all homes in Britain will enable quicker, easier switching – potentially within hours.” ..
*** “British Gas has led the roll-out of this technology with more than one million smart meters installed so far”…http://www.4-traders.com/CENTRICA-PLC-9590112/news/Centrica-PLC–British-Gas-responds-to-annual-energy-statement-17415856/

3 Nov: Dayton Daily News: Steve Bennish: Smart meter controversy could cost consumers
Last month, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio proposed a measure to allow ratepayers to opt out of the new technology. ***But if someone wants to keep the old meter, they risk a yet to be determined charge from their natural gas of electric utility provider, according to PUCO’s proposal…
*** A smarter electric grid also promises to ease the integration of renewable sources of power such as solar and wind…
The smart meter technology has a local business connection. Miami Twp.-Based data warehousing company Teradata technology is helping utility companies analyze data produced by the meters and power grids. It’s announced partnerships with large global utility companies, including California-based Pacific Gas and Electric and Siemans Smartgrid Division of Nuremberg, Germany.
Teradata’s customers include U.K.-based Centrica, GDF Suez of France, Southern California Edison and Oklahoma Gas & Electrichttp://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/smart-meter-controversy-could-cost-consumers/nbfT2/

30 Nov: Bloomberg: EDF Competes With GDF Suez to Win French Wind-Power Projects
by Tara Patel & Francois de Beaupuy
Electricite de France SA and GDF Suez SA (GSZ), the country’s biggest gas and power utilities, are vying to develop two 500-megawatt wind projects off northwestern France in a push to expand clean-energy output…
The country has outlined plans to add 6,000 megawatts of offshore wind, tidal and wave power by 2020 and scale back nuclear energy…http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-29/edf-competes-with-gdf-suez-to-win-french-offshore-wind-projects.html

22 Nov: Herald Sun: Karen Collier: Consumers face up to $194 for smart meters
VICTORIAN households will be slapped with smart meter fees of up to $194 on electricity bills next year.
Charges for about 1.6 million homes and small businesses are set to rise from January.
But about a million customers should get a slight discount…
***The charges coincide with anger over revelations tens of thousands of smart meter “refusers” risk power bill hikes of up to $150 a year, on top of smart meter costs, as a disconnection alternative.
***”Australians in every other state have the right not to have a smart meter,” Stop Smart Meters Australia president Marc Florio said.http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/consumers-face-up-to-194-for-smart-meters/story-fni0fit3-1226766398832

People will try and tell you Wind power is filling a niche, but is it really. All that is ever quoted is the seemingly large up front Nameplate Capacity.

Mention Capacity Factor and equate that to average running time per day and renewable power supporters get all defensive, usually resorting to the the old stand by, you know, that word beginning with D, the same term as for stocking linear mass density of fibres.

However, lets then look at the big Wind users on Planet Earth and equate that run time average down to an average daily generation time.

Australia is a minnow by comparison with only 2660MW Nameplate Capacity, most of it new, hence a higher Capacity Factor, in fact closer to 30% (albeit from a small base) hence a Daily Run Time of 7.2 Hours.

For the Whole of the World, were looking at around 288,000MW with a Capacity Factor of only 17% for an average daily run time of just a tick over 4 Hours.

So here on a World Basis, we have the equivalent of 144 large scale coal fired power plants delivering their maximum rated power for barely 4 hours a day.

Please don’t tell me that Wind is a viable source of supplying electrical power. Those 4 hours are spread sporadically across the 24 hours so they are not 4 hours set in stone. It could be any old time.

Immense cost for what amounts to virtually nothing, which then needs to have constant back up power readily available at a second’s notice.

See now why Natural Gas fired power is the fall back for wind, and just why big oil/gas is pushing wind for all its worth.

you’d have to be a complete buffoon to think nameplate capacity was important.

Actually whirlymouth, out in the real industrial world, which obviously doesn’t include wind and solar, “nameplate capacity” is the MAIN figure that is important, as far as supply contracts and performance are concerned.

But you just carry on thread-bombing your ignorance.
There just might be someone left out there, somewhere, who doesn’t already know you’re a twit.

I suspect that Vince is actually correct – nameplate capacity is irrelevant if it is never actually delivered in practice. Delivered capacity is what counts – which is the point of Tony’s comment. Unfortunately, this casts the wind farm advocates in a rather dim light; in quoting nameplate capacity without reference to actual delivered capacity, we can only conclude that they are fools or they are liars – which one will it be Vince?

I would also advise Vince not to refer to Tony as a buffoon – he is anything but. And remember the old saying -

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but your ad homeniums do not constitute a valid or logical argument.

nameplate capacity is irrelevant if it is never actually delivered in practice

100% WRONG Speedy, just like Vince. Apart from wind and solar, nameplate capacity is PRECISELY what is expected to be delivered in practice, in industry. An example.

A refinery wanted a new boiler. The tender documents specified that the boiler would have a nameplate capacity of 260 tonnes per hour of dry steam at 536 degrees C, at 95 atmospheres.

When the tender was awarded and a purchase contract was drawn up, the nameplate capacity was restated, and the contract would have stated something like the boiler would be capable of delivering nameplate capacity for a minimum of 30 days continuously, and for a minimum of 300 days in a calendar year, in a performance clause. This is what the purchaser expects AS A MINIMUM, and the supplier doesn’t get the final two payments until that standard is met.

When the boiler was delivered, welded to the side on the burner floor was a brass plate – the “nameplate”. The nameplate stated that the capacity of the boiler was 260 tph at 536 deg C, at 95 ATM. Once the boiler had been tested and settled, it delivered its nameplate capacity and the supplier would have been paid the second-last 10% of the purchase price.

A year later when the boiler had met its performance clause, the supplier would have been paid the final 10% of the purchase price. If the boiler had failed to meet either its nameplate capacity, or its performance criteria based on its nameplate capacity, the supplier would not receive those final two payments, until they had rectified the shortcomings. If they were unable to rectify the shortcomings, they would be up for compensation payments.

.
I repeat, the nameplate capacity of a piece of equipment is the MINIMUM standard the purchaser can expect, day in, day out, to the extent defined in the performance criteria. It is NOT some “theoretical” figure dependent on external factors, such as whether the wind blows,or the sun shines.

Think about it. If Boeing design a plane and decide they need a jet engine for it, with a capacity of 16,000 pounds of thrust, they go to Rolls Royce and buy a jet engine with a nameplate capacity of 16,000 pounds of thrust. This is NOT what Boeing “hope” the engine “might” develop on a good day, but is the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM they expect that engine to produce each and every time the pilot selects full thrust.

This is how things work in the real world. Only in the esoteric fantasy world of “renewable energy” does “nameplate capacity” refer to anything other than the expected continuous output of the equipment. This is because the output capacity of solar and wind cannot be guaranteed AT ANY LEVEL, since that output is entirely dependent on an outside variable. Put another way, “nameplate capacity” used in reference to solar and wind, is part of the big con. GE may as well start selling wind turbines with a “nameplate capacity” of a thousand googelwatts – there’s just as much likelihood of achieving that, as the 2.5 megawatts they might claim.

.
This is why Tony uses “capacity factor”, as “nameplate capacity” is utterly meaningless for solar and wind. It is a fraud. And since he has explained it in miniscule detail at least a hundred times now, those of you who haven’t got it by now, never will.

Tony has forgotten more about the subject than you’ll ever know. When you pick an argument you should, at the very least, size up your opponent and gauge his knowledge relative to yours. The label, buffoon, just might stick to you.

Let me partially support Wind Brain.
nameplate capacity isn’t important when talking about wind, because you so rarely see it delivered, and then only for a few hours before the turbines shut down.

When the advocates of wind power talk about Capacity Factor it is only to exaggerate what you should expect. Over and over the CF claimed for the new project proves unrealistic. Try the initial estimates for off-shore wind in the UK for a start.

What the advocates of wind power (and other renewables) like to talk about is how many thousands of households will be supplied with electricity. The figure works out at each household being able to boil an electric kettle ONCE a day, and nothing else. Of course wind is variable, so you may not be able to boil a kettle for 3 or 4 days running, so on the fifth day you might get enough for one third of the average household consumption.

Vince, I suggest you address public meetings of mothers with young children explaining under your ideas they should be grateful to get interruptions to electricity for 3 days at a time roughly 3 times a summer, so the refrigerator will be out. Also the washing machine, iron, oven, air conditioner and fans, TV and lights.
Wear protective clothing as their reaction may not be quite as favourable as you greenies think.

What the advocates of wind power (and other renewables) like to talk about is how many thousands of households will be supplied with electricity.

Oh, the abuse I cop when I explain that X number of homes supplied.

It’s a trick really.

At the proposal stage, they have a theoretical Capacity Factor, usually around 38%, sometimes actually as high as even 42%. Wind Plants can barely average 30% on a year round basis, and as you can see form the figures I quoted above, Capacity Factors are indeed considerably lower than the up front theoretical figure.

So, utilising the Nameplate Capacity, (you know, that thing that Vince says is never even used) they can then calculate the theoretical total amount of actual power that the wind plant might deliver across a full year, in GigaWattHours, using that theoretical Capacity Factor.

Then, they know the average power consumption in total (24/7/365) of an average household in that area, and all they do is divide that home average into their theoretical total, and round it out to the next ten thousand, and this gives them their X number of homes supplied by clean green power. It’s an impressive large number when people think of their own power consumption and then extrapolate that out to this huge number of homes quoted.

The wind plant is connected to the grid only. It is not connected to those homes, and even so, it could never supply their full needs on a 24/7/365 basis as it is.

Try to actually find, at any renewable power plant proposal, any one of them, where they actually quote the Capacity Factor, and they have only just begun to include a projected total power delivery at some of them. That’s for people to work out for themselves from that, umm, X number of homes supplied, and 99 out of a hundred people have no idea what it means anyway, and when asked about it later, proposers of plants like this have actually said we gave that data with that X number of homes supplied figure.

If it’s such a misleading thing to use, why would they bother using it anyway. It seems that when it comes to truth in advertising, then for all renewables, that truth is OK to be bent to suit the meme.

It’s a similar case with the amount of CO2 saved, that they also quote in their blurbs, and cars removed from the road. It’s an arbitrary guess, calculated based on the worst case scenario they can find.

It’s odd, they always accuse their perceived enemy, fossil fuels of using underhanded tactics, and that’s all they use themselves.

All you can do is laugh at them and then explain the tricks they use to hide the fact that renewables will never be able to do what they claim they can do.

Two can play at that game. Here’s the site for just one wind plant here in Oz, the Waubra Wind Plant, and note that the number of homes (110,000) is in the introductory bullet points.

Well then, Bayswater Power plant generates enough electricity to supply more than 2 million average Australian homes and families.

Tony:
no argument here.
Take the UK offshore wind “farms”. When first proposed there were objections that they would cost at least double those built on land. “No problem, those off shore ones would produce twice as much”.
The truth is that those on land have slipped slightly (because of more turbines on not so good sites) from 27% to 25-26% CF. The offshore ones are running at 35%; two thirds of what they were supposed to be. On top of that they are costing more than forecast and the maintenance costs are enormous, and might be running over 20% of revenue. No wonder that the Atlantic Array was cancelled.

Then there was the “farm” at Albany WA. Beautifully cited on a peninsula perpendicular to the prevailing wind, with a smooth rise in front and fall behind, with smooth hills at either end for channeling. Claimed CF was just under 41% but in practice more like 31-33%.

Shell and BP founded the CRU in 1969. A cynic would say they did this to create a market for North Sea gas which was totally worthless (it was burnt at the well head). The only way to sell gas was to close the British coal industry. Unfortunately Shell and BP had no idea what sort of genie they were releasing.

***”Sun King” Lord Browne, former BP Chairman, now chairman of fracking company Cuadrilla, wouldn’t have any conflicts of interest, would he?

29 Nov: Guardian: Damian Carrington: Lord Browne: fracking will not reduce UK gas prices
Statement contradicts David Cameron and George Osborne’s claims that shale gas could help curb soaring energy bills
The statement by Lord Browne, one of the most powerful energy figures in Britain, contradicts claims by David Cameron and George Osborne that shale gas exploration could help curb soaring energy bills.
Browne added to the government’s ongoing troubles over energy policy by labelling nuclear power as “very, very expensive indeed” and describing the fact that more state subsidies are given to oil and gas than to renewable energy as “like running both the heating and the air conditioning at the same time”.
The former chief executive of BP, who now holds a senior government position as lead non-executive director, told an audience at the London School of Economics that climate change was “existentially important”, but that without gas the transition to a zero-carbon energy system would never happen…
Browne said there was no evidence that fracking itself had caused water pollution in the US, but said there had been “issues to do with the leaking of gas into aquifers as a result of imperfect operations, mainly to do with the cementing of well casings.”
In March, the Guardian revealed that Browne and Cuadrilla had been reprimanded in a meeting with the then energy minister Charles Hendry for failing to inform government that earthquakes caused by Cuadrilla’s drilling had caused a well casing to deform.
Browne also said: “There have been some bad practices in the US in the disposal of waste water.” But he criticised the government for failing to create appropriate regulations for fracking…
Browne criticised the UK’s fossil fuel subsidies…
Browne said nuclear power was one of the safest energy sources available, but said that had come at a cost: “Nuclear power has become very, very expensive indeed.”
In October, ministers agreed a deal to pay French state energy company EDF billions of pounds in subsidies if it goes ahead with two new reactors at Hinkley Point in Somerset, a deal that left some analysts “flabbergasted” at the cost. Browne also said the siting of new reactors on the coast when sea level and storm surges are rising was a “big issue” and that they must be made resilient…

***Browne, once known as the “sun king” and who said he is now co-head of the largest private equity renewable energy fund in the world at Riverstone Holdings, said: “Solar is a very good technology and we should use more of it.”

Here I am, pushing age 75 and dumb old me, all this time I thought there were only two choices, she or he. And being an all woman’s institution I would think the former is the obvious (and only) choice.

It looks like I could have been going around all these years being known as something more prestigious, like a prince or maybe a king. Oops, can’t do that one, Obama has that sewed up tight.

What can you say when this is the best and brightest of our young women? A ring in your nose is apparently a substitute for something between your ears.

Roy–California lets elementary school children decide their own gender and use whichever restroom they want based on that choice. Gender is now “who you feel you are”, no longer enslaved by the narrow definitions of biology. I could go on with many examples, but I fear you would be overwhelmed by them. This is best studied an example or two at a time.

To tie it back to climate change ( ), when you base your entire theory, and now life, on models and make-believe, the outcomes can appear to be very bizarre indeed.

Yes, I know. The train is in the ditch and apparently no one can see it.

No I wouldn’t be overwhelmed by your many examples. I could easily give a few myself. I’d just be disgusted and repulsed by how low we have allowed ourselves to sink.

I fail utterly to understand this obsession with gender identity. It’s fixed by your genetic inheritance and no matter what you may think about it, no matter whether you like it or not, you are either male or female. You can change the words all you want to but under your cloths your body knows which it is and develops and acts accordingly.

We have so many much more critical fish to fry. Why are we so far afield?

In order to control a population, you have to either use tanks or fantasy. Tanks are messy. So we go with fantasy. You convince people that words are all that are important (that started in the 60′s). Then you move to saying that the words don’t really correspond to “reality” but rather the words form the reality. Once you achieve that, you can pretty much get people to do anything. Unless….

You do something like Obama did, and lie and use words to make promises where the reality could not be hidden and adversely affected a large number of people. People know when their rates go up, people know when they lose their doctor. It’s a definite example of “overreaching”. Theoretically, you can get it to work if you go slowly enough. Obama just overestimated how far we are on the continuum. People are suddenly noticing that words don’t necessarily form reality. The choosing of gender was part of the building to where words become reality, as is the term “bullying” (which is defined by the left and applies only to the right).

You have now created a world where talk is everything and words have no actual meaning. Consider that Obama wanted insurance companies to call cancellations “renewals”. Now words are reality and words have fluid meanings. Reality is fluid. Black is white, up is down. Just as handjive’s ode to climate change shows us.

For some reason a few of us managed to escape that trap. Are you a bible scholar by any chance? That’s rhetorical, you don’t need to answer. But Jesus gave a very good example of how to judge a man (I’ve probably said this before) — judge a man and a tree the same way. Good fruit, good tree; bad fruit, bad tree. Good fruit good man; bad fruit, bad man.

That insight into how to tell what’s going on is the most valuable thing I’ve ever learned. It taught me right away to pay only enough attention to the words to be able to see if the deeds match up. And more than that, to look at the result of the deeds to see what comes from their doing. By that measure about 99% of what passes for leadership among humans falls flat on it’s butt. You would dig up and throw out of your garden any tree that didn’t bear good fruit. Yet we elect and then reelect the losers who year after year, term after term, get things into a continuously worsening mess. We follow fools who can barely put on their shoes in the morning without supervision.

I don’t care about smart anymore. What counts is the wisdom behind the smarts. Some have it and some don’t. And in my view of the world, far too many don’t.

Roy, I think “smarts” or in other words, worldliness or wisdom is slowly being deliberately discouraged and demonized because it’s inconvenient having people derailing the politically correct narrative because they see through the BS. The gender debate is quite pathetic. Sheri’s California anecdote sort of sums up the breathtaking stupidity of the cretins pushing this particular barrow. I have never been to California and quite frankly I now never want to go there. If and when our modern western way of life ever collapsed in a heap, the process will start in California, the nexus of vacuous philosophically decadent thought. Obammy must love California.

Yes, California will be out there leading the way to oblivion. But other states are also in a considerable mess; New York is one.

But California is still home to 35 plus million people who are generous, kind and welcoming to travelers. The state is every bit as beautiful as Australia with much to see from the desert in bloom after the spring rain, to the Sierra Nevada Mountains which are home to Yosemite National Park and then over to the Big Sur and the spectacular drive along state highway 1 perched up on a cliff overlooking the Pacific Ocean between Morrow Bay and Carmel. Then there are the redwood forests. Yes there is so much to see that I’ve yet to get to it all.

My favorite thing about California, beauty wise, is the desert. You have to look to see what’s there sometimes. But it’s really alive with creatures both large and small despite the lack of rainfall. And the wild flowers can be stunning in the spring, not to mention the cactus flowers if you get the chance to see them.

Do not give up on California the place simply because its voters have been foolish. Most of us are the same honest, good and hard working people you know as friends and neighbors.

Why don’t we revert to his and hers and tell those too confused to know which they are to stay home until they figure it out? Why must the rest of us continually kiss up to the dysfunctional members of society?

And it’s worse than that. We now encourage it. This stuff has become a cottage industry, complete with very loud and aggressive advocates, not to mention the academics who’ll latch onto anything they can find to try to make a name for themselves.

Again, I don’t care how you want to look at yourself. I don’t care about your private behavior either. But I don’t make a point of shoving my sexual (or gender if you prefer) identity in anyone’s face and I want that same respect from everyone else. Period!

I went back and read the whole article again. I know, bad habit. But the word that kept coming up in my mind is dysfunctional. We are a more and more dysfunctional society with almost every passing day.

Are they suggesting that homosexual men may not be male and homosexual women may not be female?

All very confusing…. for them but not for most of us.

One of my sons who was a bit of a wild bikie boy (Bandidos) in his thirties but is now more or less back on the straight and narrow told me that some of the sheilas (ladies) who hung out at the clubhouse were dogs and he didn’t attend no Ladies College. So who knows what gender/species is involved in that situation?

Are they suggesting that homosexual men may not be male and homosexual women may not be female?

Llew,

Possibly so. But if you boil it all down, the particular case I mentioned looks like simply poking because they can, to see who yelps. But they’re certainly made aware of the opportunity to try what they’re doing by seeing something on their TV set, in a magazine, anywhere, that plays to their particular gripe about the world. And who doesn’t have some gripe about the world?

Then one generation always teaches its gripes to it successors.

When feminism came along some of the complaints were (and still are) legitimate. But it soon went overboard. The same thing has happened with disabled advocacy, homosexuality, sex education, racism and so many others. We cannot find an equilibrium where the best mix of things is achieved and maintained. The solution takes on a life of its own and runs out of control, rendering whatever the real complaint was, trivial and pointless — and dragging lives into trivial pursuit along with it. At least that’s my take on it.

I’m also sure that those issues you mentioned also prosper because we live in an increasingly irrational world.

ACC fits neatly into that sort of mindset. Whether the motivation is a person’s greed or personal advantage, ACC should be a non starter for a reasonably intelligent person given the relative overwhelmingly massive scale of the Earth’s natural biosphere.

Thanks for your comments on my younger son. He was a Harley fan years before he joined that club. In January 2009 four of the “brothers” (used to tell him, when on club business, we love you bro) turned up at his house in the evening, smashed his front door down, bashed him within an inch of his life, stuck a handgun in his mouth and pulled the trigger several times. They stole his Harley an auto and computer worth over 100 grand. Never got any of it back. Told him if he made it out of hospital he’d better not talk to the cops or they would kill him.

He observed the customary bikie code of silence when the police questioned him. His old man worked on him until we both went to the police. The case was finally (after one aborted court case) heard before a Jury in the Victorian Supreme Court a few months ago. Three were found guilty and will be sentenced this month.

A hard way to learn not to associate with s*** but he’s got over it and going OK.

It is always about the money. Shell and other “big oil” companies know that they are sitting on huge reserves of shale oil and gas. “Big green” knows that it can extract money from energy companies to finance their game plan for a new world order.

Big oil believes that big green’s days are numbered. All big oil needs is for the passage of time to reveal the magnitude of the financial waste and damage caused by the CAGW fraud and the disastrous energy policies employed to combat it. In the meantime, any restrictions that the greens cause to be placed on the production of fossil fuels means that big oil will see its finite supplies of oil and gas last longer while generating more profits. The cost of doing business with big green is more than offset by higher profits and long term growth.

Big green believes it will prevail over big oil and has engaged in a modern version of the Louisiana purchase. Just as Napoleon sold his territories in North America to finance his conquests believing that he would get the land back when he conquered the world so it is with big green and their quest for world domination. Big green can extort the money it needs now and can hold the principal players in big oil accountable at a later date with show trials followed by swift and severe punishment.

A few years ago, the world had a peek at Hubbert’s peak which piqued the worlds curiosity about oil supplies. Since then, Hubbert’s Peak , posited upon a mathematical formula, has had a change in one of its variables, total supply. Now, the peak in production is centuries down the road instead of being just around the bend.

This has had a profound impact upon the US in particular and the world in general.

The cost of energy in the US is decreasing. We are seeing falling prices at the pump. The abundance of natural gas has also lowered electricity prices. The exception is California which mandates that utilities buy more and more power from green sources. Ironically, half of the shale oil in the US is contained in the Monterey Shale Formation in central California, the Deadbeat State. I believe California will again become the Golden State once its citizens realize it is in their financial best interest to support shale drilling. Politicians will acquiesce because it will give them another source of revenue to squander.

Cheap and abundant energy also means less inflation, increased economic growth and less reliance on energy from geopolitically unstable and hostile regions. The US will soon be a net exporter of oil and gas which will lead to economic growth that will enable continued US global military and economic dominance.

Right now, the greens are on the defensive. Their Trojan horse for world domination, global warming, has come off at the wheels and has been going nowhere fast for 17 years. Green energy, a leverage intended to pry us from fossil fuels has lost its luster and viability with most voters due to the availability of cheap and abundant fossil fuels. Moreover, without the threat of catastrophic warming to scare them people will not shoot themselves in the wallet to pay for a costlier and unnecessary source of energy.

Big oil supports the green cause via advertising campaigns, ransom payments charitable donations, and bad investments in green energy boondoggles such as solar and windmill power generation the energy industry mainly for two reasons. The first reason is to gain leverage when negotiating with the green mafia when they attempt to impede big oil’s plans to drill, produce and transport oil and gas and the second is great PR via the perception by the public that big oil really does care about something other than making a profit.

The world will continue to use oil and gas until the market finds a less expensive yet equally reliable source of energy. If we run out of oil and gas before that happens then we will convert coal into oil and gas.

Big oil and big green are all about money and power. The only real difference between big oil and big green is that big oil makes our modern lives possible while making a profit for its shareholders whereas big green wants to destroy our way of life to fight a pending apocalypse that never existed.

Thank you for your nice commnetary and turn of near alliterative phrase Eddy. Peak oil has long been one of the bulwarks of stalwart catastrophism. It’s become a bit tired now.

A few years ago, the world had a peek at Hubbert’s peak which piqued the worlds curiosity about oil supplies.

Cambridge Energy Research Associates published a paper that criticized Hubbert’s Peak Theory: “Despite his valuable work, M. King Hubbert’s method does not work flawless because it does not take into account resource growth, improved technology or the impact of politics on oil production. His method is not reliable in all cases including on the United States and cannot predict a reliably global oil production peak. In other words, the case for the imminent peak is flawed. As it is, oil production in 2005 in the Lower 48 in the U.S was 65% higher than Hubbert predicted.”

A bit OT ….. and as for coal, over the last decade (2000-10) coal production has grown by 48% and has helped to meet a 28% overall growth in global energy demand.http://www.ukcoal.com/world-coal-statistics.html
The UK produced 16.8 million tonnes of coal in 2012 – China produced 3,162 million tonnes (2010).

You are very much along the lines of my thinking on mankind’s future energy source in believing that Thorium power will be one of the mainstays of future energy generation technologies. And your historical facts re nuclear research are also pretty well on the ball.
But to Thorium I would add the possibility, perhaps even strong possibility of fusion power coming on stream by 2030 if Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works Fusion Reactor technology proves to live up to it’s claims as outlined in this last February’s Solve for X forum by the Skunk Work’s Charles Chase.
This is almost the only information that has been released publicly by the Skunk Works on their Fusion Reactor project .

Two points on the Skunk Works project.
Being mostly involved with some very secretive research on such as the unmanned returnable mini air force space shuttles, the purposes for which have still not been released and only guessed at, is that the Skunk Works [ registered name ] rarely release any information on a project unless they pretty sure it is a going concern.

So releasing the information on their Fusion Reactor project has raised as the second point, the possibility that they have already achieved fusion and even more important that they may have achieved break even fusion ie; energy in is equalled by energy out
And THAT would really be some break through in the world of fusion technology where the ITER project at Carradache in France is still some 10 years away from first light if it is ever finished and the Laser Ignition Facility in the USA has constantly predicted fusion achievement but then has failed to achieve it at all .
The latest problems with the LIF is the Dueterium / Tritium pellets contained in the hohlraums are not being evenly compressed by the laser beams to bring their temperatures up to the 100 million degrees Kelvin that is needed for fusion of the D and T atoms.
Meanwhile Charles Chase as you can see in the “Solve for X” forum video is putting forward the Skunk Work’s program for proving Fusion in their reactor by 2017, be in commercial production by the early 2020′s and dominate the global energy generation by 2050.
If you believe that then buying Lockheed Martin shares now for your kids or your own retirement might be a very good move indeed.

On Jo’s heading of this post.
All companies have a finite lifetime. In the USA the average lifetime of a company or corporation is about 40 years. What i have observed over the last 50 or so years of my lifetime is that when you start to think a company or an organisation or even an individual is unassailable and is powering on to ever greater power and influence then the white ants are already in the foundations and moving into the basement on their way to making the whole still solid looking structure little more than an impressive looking shell that is likely to collapse at any time.

A PPT presentation of Organisational Life Cycles from the Harvard Business School can be found at the top here

So what I am proposing is that despite the appearance of Shells and other oil company’s apparent immense power and influence, there are already some very strong indications that their reign at the top of the energy pyramid might already be starting it’s decline with a consequent steady erosion of their power and influence as other energy generation technologies come into fruition and on line.

Just as another indicator and almost unnoticed as a total item is the steady development of Hybrid powered vehicles with their combined electric and internal combustion engines which are lowering fuel consumption to almost unbelievably low levels for even mid sized vehicles at less than 5 ltrs / 100 km.
But it still reqires a fossil fuel using IC engine you might say.
True ! But have a look at the development of the electrical components of the hybrid vehicle propulsion drive line systems and short term energy storage systems and there are a whole host of newer technologies emerging there, all of which are far more efficient in using the available energy to achieve a similar performance as that from a fossil fueled IC engine only.

Next step is to have a look at what is starting to happen in both hydrogen production and hydrogen storage [ that the tricky one to overcome ] and hydrogen fuel cell research which are all orientated to vehicle propulsion and power generation without any Internal combustion engines or any fossil fuels being involved in the process.

Put these so far relatively separate technological advances together and get mass production of the complete hydrogen / fuel cell power generating systems along with Fusion powered production of mass quantities of hydrogen and quite suddenly you have a completely new set of technologies that do not require any fossil fuels for mobile applications.ie Cars, trucks , transport of every type plus replacement for gas powered generators in off grid situations and etc and etc.

Nor do you require coal for power generation. The only coal required will be still very large amounts for legacy coal fired generators, for steel production and for cement production, for steel and cement production probably about 20% or so of present global coal use.

The path of energy generation may not follow this precise outline but it is indicative of the path that we will follow regardless of the power generation technologies that will be used in the future.
In the end, I think we are seeing the peak of the oil company’s influence and power and perhaps the peak or only a couple of decades away from it, of the fossil fuels in our global energy production systems.
What follows next is not yet clear [ otherwise one would be buying shares like there is no tomorrow in those energy technology companies ; ie like we should have in Microsoft and Apple re computer technology ] but the signs and indications of the new the energy production technologies still to come are becoming increasingly clear.
And with the advent of those new energy production technologies will come the demise of the great global fossil fuel producing companies and the rise of new usually completely unanticipated companies to become the new global powers in mankind’s fourth most important need for his survival and prosperity and advance of his civilisation and that is energy and energy production.

the oil so-called “Supermajors” all date back to late Nineteenth Century or early 20th Century, so the 40-year-corporate-lifespan theory doesn’t apply! LOL.

i’m grateful to Big Oil (oldies & newcomers) for the benefits they have brought us, but am also extremely critical when they do great harm to the environment, especially when they won’t own up or clean-up. plus, since Climategate woke me up, i’ve found much evidence to show Big Oil have been Stakeholders in CAGW from the start.

a Big Oil saga during the Warsaw talks related to 130 countries, led by Brazil, proposing IPCC devise a methodology for nations to calculate their total output of greenhouse gases since 1850 to determine their historical responsibility for global warming. they failed, with developed countries ignoring the decades this farce has gone on, by claiming there’s no time for that:

21 Nov: Guardian: Hannah Osborne: Suzanne Goldenberg: Just 90 companies caused two-thirds of man-made global warming emissions
Chevron, Exxon and BP among companies most responsible for climate change since dawn of industrial age, figures show
The companies range from investor-owned firms – household names such as Chevron, Exxon and BP – to state-owned and government-run firms…
The analysis, which was welcomed by the former vice-president Al Gore as a “crucial step forward” found that the vast majority of the firms were in the business of producing oil, gas or coal, found the analysis, which has been published in the journal Climatic Change…
***Half of the estimated emissions were produced just in the past 25 years – well past the date when governments and corporations became aware that rising greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of coal and oil were causing dangerous climate change…
Between them, the 90 companies on the list of top emitters produced 63% of the cumulative global emissions of industrial carbon dioxide and methane between 1751 to 2010, amounting to about 914 gigatonne CO2 emissions, according to the research. All but seven of the 90 were energy companies producing oil, gas and coal. The remaining seven were cement manufacturers.
The list of 90 companies included 50 investor-owned firms – mainly oil companies with widely recognised names such as Chevron, Exxon, BP , and Royal Dutch Shell and coal producers such as British Coal Corp, Peabody Energy and BHP Billiton.
Some 31 of the companies that made the list were state-owned companies such as Saudi Arabia’s Saudi Aramco, Russia’s Gazprom and Norway’s Statoil.
Nine were government run industries, producing mainly coal in countries such as China, the former Soviet Union, North Korea and Poland, the host of this week’s talks…
The historic emissions record was constructed using public records and data from the US department of energy’s Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Centre, and took account of emissions all along the supply chain.
The centre put global industrial emissions since 1751 at 1,450 gigatonnes.http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/20/90-companies-man-made-global-warming-emissions-climate-change

25 Nov: Columbia Law School: Climate Law Blog: Center for Climate Change Law: UNFCCC COP19 in Warsaw Ends with Last-Minute Deals
By Stephanie Chuffart, Visiting Fellow
Attended by more than 10,000 people, including national delegations, NGOs, ***advocates, journalists and business leaders, the talks were made difficult by the necessity to balance, on the one hand, developing countries’ demands that developed countries meet their obligations resulting from the Copenhagen Accord, and, on the other hand, the urgent necessity to move forward on commitments in anticipation of the Paris COP in 2015…
With respect to the pathway towards a universal climate agreement in 2015, the delegations only agreed to prepare themselves in order to be able to negotiate commitments in Lima in 2014 and Paris in 2015. Indeed, the adopted decision invites “all Parties to initiate or intensify domestic preparations for their intended nationally determined contributions [...] by the first quarter of 2015 by those Parties ready to do so”.[1] The wording represents a significant attenuation of earlier proposals for “those in a position” to deliver a climate “commitment” by early 2015, but at least a calendar is set…
Negotiations on the LDM were successful and the COP established the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage[2], although the US, the EU and other developed countries had opposed the measure fearing new financial claims. The negotiation was undoubtedly encouraged by the recent Typhoon Haiyan’s devastating impacts in the Philippines. Interestingly, while a LDM is neither mitigation nor adaptation, the delegates agreed, following a US proposal, to nest the mechanism under the existing Cancun Adaptation Framework. The mechanism will be subject to review at the 2016 COP and its future is hence not settled yet…http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2013/11/25/unfccc-cop19-in-warsaw-ends-with-last-minute-deals/

[...] It all sounds so green: ROYAL Dutch Shell actively lobbied the World Bank to stop funding coal-fired plants before an announcement this year that the lender would dramatically reduce its support of coal, Australia’s second biggest export. [...]

Shell is right to criticize the coal subsidies in Korea. All energy subsidies in developed countries are unfair in a competitive free market. And if it hurts Shell what’s wrong with them pointing that out?

In support of Tony’s commentary on the futility of wind and the importance of baseload, here in the UK the website Gridwatch (http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/) lays it all out for all to see in a rather neat graphic like an old-fashioned control panel.

There are some excellent studies by Prof Gordon Hughes on the true performance of windfarms, including the marked deterioration over time and the likelihood that they will not achieve their design life, let alone output.

Lastly, anyone wanting a perfect case study in how to mismanage a country’s power system – its lifeblood – should take a look at what is happening in the UK. As the US Marines say, it is a cluster-f***. Alongside all of the shenanigans over renewables, prices, failures to invest, etc., the implications of “smart meters” are sliding under the radar: they enable demand management…
There was an epic example of our idiocy over the past few weekends. The western M4 motorway was in chaos as 3 huge transformers were transported to Avonmouth docks. They came from the Didcot coal-fired power station which is being demolished. They were going to Germany to be installed in new coal-fired power plants.

“We’ve never stopped a climate crisis before,” DeChristopher says. But at least, the movement has learned “what doesn’t work—appeasing those in power.” DeChristopher points to what he characterizes as the failed strategy of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) founded in 2007 by a coalition of major environment groups, such as the Environmental Defense Fund and the Natural Resources Defense Council (partnering with major corporations such as BP America, Pacific Oil and Gas Company, Shell, and General Electric). Having spent more than $700 million on a comprehensive strategy, featuring cap and trade as a principle tactic for change, in 2009 this effort “fell on its face,” says DeChristopher because it was “built around how corporate lobbyists work.”

Well that’s what happens when you mess around with big bucks of slippery oil.

Weel why dont we stop using shell products for the most part it wont make our lives different! might be benificial when a global finds out that the consumer IF you can get them moving is the most powerfull person on earth!

What’s the surprising big news boys and girls?
There’s nothing earth shattering here, it’s pure profitteering on the part of Shell et al, but who can blame them for exploiting mass stupidity to turn a few quick bucks?
The funniest part is how Greenpricks and Guardian readers wail and gnash their teeth claiming that every sceptic is ‘in the pocket of big oil’, when big oil demonstrably has so much to gain from the hot-air affect.
Check out Statoil’s position on applying a tax on carbon (dioxide) in order to save the planet and in the process converting German brown coal electricity generation to imported North Sea gas; http://www.statoil.com/en/NewsAndMedia/News/2013/Pages/25Nov_Hostkonferansen.aspx
“…The company calls for a global price on carbon reflecting the real impact of emissions. A global price on carbon will stimulate technologies that can deliver energy with minimum carbon footprint.
Statoil also points to the increasingly important role of natural gas – as more gas at the expense of coal in the energy mix contributes to reducing emissions by around 50%…”
even though they’re in the Climatic Journal’s list of top 90 nasty pasties.

Gas turbines cannot be switched on and off almost instantly, only the jumbo jets’ turbines can. Gas turbine plants used for electricity generation are CCGTs, having a steam stage on their exhaust gases. This increases the gas turbine’s conversion efficiency from 30% to 60%. If you are going to switch CCGTs on and off “almost instantly” to compensate wind energy variability the resulting efficiency degradation would lead to more CO2 being produced than when the windmills would be switched off and the CCGTs could run at their constant maximum efficiency output.

“Wind provides 28.3 percent of electricity in Denmark and also makes a double digit contribution of 16 percent in Portugal and Spain. It contributes more than 40 percent of annual electricity in three German states and 20 percent of South Australia’s electricity” (from Global Wind Day 2013)c.f. Sheri, December 4 2013,at 12:28 pm

Denmark has to export more than half of their wind energy to Norway and Sweden because it cannot be accommodated on the electricity net. The net contribution therefore is about 10 percent (c.f. CEPOS study)

In Germany for the second year CO2 emissions are increasing. We know that CO2 is not dangerous, but it is a measure for fossil fuel use. Clearly, the renewable energy intermittency is increasing fuel use of the conventional electricity fleet, which has been demonstrated before by Bentek.

I don’t know exact numbers about Australia but I am quite certain that also there the net fuel savings by wind energy are almost zero, perhaps negative already. The fuel savings decrease with increasing wind energy contribution because the energy variations on the network increase.